Allowed

Irfan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Sept 2018BAIL/25866/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge considered a bail application in a criminal case involving sections 308, 504, and 506 IPC. The applicant argued lack of specific injury attribution and clean criminal record. Bench relied on Dataram Singh and granted bail under personal and surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties in like amount subject to standard conditions of cooperation and non-tampering.

Irfan Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25866 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Irfan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anupama Parashar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of informant in the Court today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Anupama Parashar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the F.I.R. general allegation of assaulting the victim with saria, lathi and bottle has been made against four persons including applicant. Four persons have been assigned role of causing injuries, however, it is not clear that whose assault caused the said injuries. He next submitted that according to C.T. Scan report, no significant abnormality seen. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the court. Further submission is that applicant who is in jail since 16.5.2018 has no other criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant also undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any view on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Irfan be released on bail in Case Crime No. 141 of 2018, under Sections 308, 504 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Bhojpur, district-Ghaziabad on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶11

(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trail and remain present personally on each and every date fixed after release. (ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the

¶12

disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶14

Order Date :- 14.9.2018 Faridul

Irfan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irfan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radheyshyam Vs State of U.P.

Nazeer Ahmad Alias Raju Vs State of U.P.

Gopal Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Jonny @ Aditya Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Yadav Vs State of U.P.