Allowed

Shahid v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2018BAIL/38785/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application wherein the court examined the prosecution case alleging murder and assault. Considering the applicant's lack of criminal history, identity with a co-accused already on bail, and grant period, the court deemed it a fit case for bail under IPC Sections 302 and 324.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties on conditions not to tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses, and appear when required.

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

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38785 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Shahid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mainuddin Ahamad 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 the prosecution case the F.I.R. was lodged against four accused persons namely, Sajid, Shahid, Imran and Mukhtar Ahmad alleging that on 27.6.2018 coaccused Sajid had assaulted Mumtaz Ahmad by knife. He received two incised wounds on chest, resultantly he died and co-accused assaulted by kicks and fists.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that coaccused Mukhtar has been enlarged on bail by cocoordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.9.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 37073 of 2018 and the case of the present applicant is identical to case of the co-accused, who has been enlarged on bail; hence the applicant is also entitled for the same benefit; the applicant is languishing in jail since 30.5.2018 (more than four months); having no criminal history; specific role has been assigned to Sajid, who had assaulted the deceased with knife; the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; except two injuries, no injury was found on the body of the injured; 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.

¶8

On the other hand, 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 the applicant has no criminal history and is identical to coaccused who has been enlarged on bail.

¶9

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

¶10

application is hereby allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant Shahid involved in Case Crime No. 296 of 2018, under Sections 302, 324, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.Kotwali, District-Mau be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

4.The appellant 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 appellant 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 :- 10.10.2018 OP

Shahid v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahid 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Shadab Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamal Kishore Rathi Vs State

Mahendra Bhatt and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Shyamji Pathak Vs State of U.P.