Allowed

Mohammad Alam v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2018BAIL/3393/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application lodged under trial for offences under Sections 304 and 323 IPC. Considering the applicant's lack of criminal history, duration of custody, and the nature of allegations, the court deemed it a fit case for bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Allowance of bail application for Mohammad Alam in Case Crime No. 825 of 2017, upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.

Mohammad Alam Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3393 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Mohammad Alam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Chauhan,Afzal Ahmad Khan Durrani,Mohammad Khalid Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

According to prosecution case, the F.I.R. was lodged against four accused persons, namely Mohd. Alam, Aslam, Bhagwan Singh Varma @ Babbal and Sudesh alleging that on 21.8.2017 due to suspicion of theft they assaulted Shamim and Shahrukh. Shamim received eight injuries and he died. Two mobiles were recovered from the possession of Shamim.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 22.8.2017 (more than one year and three months); having no criminal history; the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; the applicant had sent information to the Police about the recovery of mobile and two constables, namely Amit Kumar and Sunil Dhaka come to know the fact that Shamim and Shahruk had stolen the mobile; in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the above two constables have supported the case of the applicant and stated that they had received the information by dial 100 number and went on the spot and found that Shamim and Shahruk were beaten due to stolen of mobile; after one day of the incident, the stolen mobile was recovered from Shamimdeceased and he was annoyed; there was no intention or knowledge to kill the deceased; general role has been assigned against the applicant; it is not clear who is the author of that injury received on the body of the injured whereby he died; there is no independent witness and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that there is no possibility of case being decided in near future.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that applicant has no criminal history.

¶9

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody,

¶10

gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant Mohammad Alam involved in Case Crime No. 825 of 2017, under Section 304 & 323 IPC, Police StationLoni, District-Ghaziabad be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶12

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶13

2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶14

3.The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶15

4.The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶16

5.The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 3.12.2018 OP

Mohammad Alam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Alam 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.N. Agrawal Vs C.J.M. Aligarh and Others

Suraj Pal Singh and Another Vs Raghunandan Prasad and Others

Surendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Mohammad Aslam Vs State of U.P.

Sazib and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Satish Gond Vs State of U.P.