Allowed

Saleem v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2018BAIL/7735/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application concerning a murder charge, the court granted bail to the applicant, noting the discrepancy between the number of accused and the single gunshot wound found, declaring it a fit case for bail without addressing merits.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail subject to a personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding non-interference with witnesses and non-committal of new offences.

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

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7735 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Saleem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mithilesh Kumar Shukla,Avanish Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

This Bail Application (under Section 439 Cr.P.C.) has been moved for seeking bail in Case Crime No. 960 of 2017 under Section 302/34 I.P.C., P.S. Shikohabad, District Firozabad.

¶6

As per F.I.R., the prosecution case is that on 26.10.2017 at 5.30 a.m., the son of the first informant, Vijay @ Bantu was ambushed by the present accused Saleem along with three others and was fired upon by them which hit his son and resulted in his death. This occurrence took place because of some monetary dispute.

¶7

It has been argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the accused applicant that accused applicant has been falsely implicated in this case; no specific role has been assigned to the present accused of firing upon the deceased; in post-mortem report, there is one gun-shot injury found while general role has been assigned that all four fired upon him, hence it could not be identified as to whose gun-shot hit the deceased; the co-accused Sabuddin @ Chhinga and Arman have been granted bail; the case of the present accused is at par with the case of the coaccused; he has no criminal history; the accused applicant is in jail since 7.12.2017; if the accused is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail but has not controverted the aforesaid facts.

¶9

In view of above arguments and looking to the fact that only one gun-shot wound was found in the post-mortem report of the deceased while four assailants are alleged to have fired upon him, quantum of the punishment, nature of the offence and the parity claimed / period of detention in jail, without expressing any opinion on the merits, this case is found to be a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Saleem involved in aforesaid crime be

¶11

released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶12

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶13

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶14

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶15

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶16

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶17

Order Date :- 5.3.2018 A. Mandhani

Saleem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saleem 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

Netrapal Singh alias Nepal Singh and 5 others Vs State of U.P. and another

Amarpal and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Chhotey @ Shivshanker Vs State of U.P.

Chandu and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sangeeta Alias Reeta Vs State of U.P.

Kalyan Vs State of U.P.