Dismissed
Mukeem Ali v. State of U.P.
Allahabad HCBAIL/6912/2018
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No.…
What the court decided
AI extract
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No.…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6912 of 2018
Applicant :- Mukeem Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Tiwary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
This bail application has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.763 of 2016 under sections 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Izzatnagar, District Bareilly, during the pendency of trial.
As per FIR, the prosecution case is that the marriage of the sister of first informant Sabia @ Sabbo was solemnized with the accused-applicant around 22 years ago. On 10.11.2016 the accused-applicant had killed his wife and disposed of the dead body by burying it close to his house.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that at the time when the occurrence is alleged to have taken place, he was away from the house. He had a very cordial relationship with his wife, there was no dispute between them. There was no motive to kill her. The applicant is not involved in any other criminal case. The applicant is absolutely innocent and is languishing in jail since 12.11.2016. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra learned A.G.A. opposed the bail prayer of the applicant on the ground that the recovery of the dead body was made at the pointing of the accused. As per the postmortem report the cause of death is shown to be asphyxia due to ante-mortem strangulation, hence burden lies upon the accused under section 106 of the Evidence Act to disclose as to how the deceased had died. Evidence which has come on record is of the relatives of the accused.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
In the light of the aforesaid arguments and looking to the fact of the case , it is not found to be a fit case for bail.
The bail application is accordingly rejected.
However, the court below is directed to decide this case expeditiously, if possible, within a period of six months. Order Date :- 13.3.2018 AU
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused is fit for grant of bail in a case under sections 302 and 201 IPC.
Whether the case should be tried expeditiously within six months.
Whether the recovery of the dead body at the pointing of the accused mandates bail rejection.
Mukeem Ali
Dinesh Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court