Allowed

Haidar Ali v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Mar 2018BAIL/9153/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application filed by Haidar Ali seeking release on bail in a case involving offences under Sections 394, 304, and 411 IPC. The court held him fit for bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Releases the applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount subject to conditions.

Haidar Ali Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9153 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Haidar Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

This application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 322 of 2017, under Sections 394, 304, 411 I.P.C., Police Station G.R.P. Moradabad, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶6

As per FIR, the prosecution's case is that on 24.4.2017 the younger brother of the complainant/first informant Sudhir Kumar was travelling in train, the accused-applicant snatched away his mobile and had fled away from the train after jumping from it. The brother of the first informant also ran after him and in the process he fell down from the train and subsequently, he died.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that this was an accident and was not a homicidal death. Accused-applicant has no previous criminal history but three cases were slapped against him subsequent to this occurrence. He has further stated that the accused-applicant had confessed that he had snatched the mobile-phone from the hands of the deceased and the same was also recovered from his possession. Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.11.2017. If he is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty.

¶8

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer of bail, but has not controverted the aforesaid fact.

¶9

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

¶10

In view of above arguments, looking to the fact that the deceased himself had fallen down from the train to recover his mobile from the accused-applicant, taking into consideration the quantum of punishment, nature of offence and period of detention, without expressing any opinion on the merits, this case is found to be a fit case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant Haidar Ali involved in aforesaid crime be 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 :- 14.3.2018 A.P. Pandey

Haidar Ali v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haidar Ali 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

Mukeem Ali Vs State of U.P.

Narad Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Alias Ajju Vs State of U.P.

Bauwa Alias Arvind Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Kumar @ Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Jai Karan Vs State of U.P.