Allowed

Zibrail v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2018CRLA/1371/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court allowed the bail application of the appellant Zibrail, setting aside the order rejecting bail. The court noted the appellant had no criminal history, was in custody for over seven months, and there was no independent witness, though it expressly reserved opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 20.02.2018 rejecting bail is set aside; appellant released on bail with conditions including no tampering with evidence or witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1371 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Zibrail Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Santosh Kukmar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

From perusal of the counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. it appears that notice has been served on the opposite party no. 2, but none is present on his behalf.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This criminal appeal has been filed against order dated 20.02.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Shahjahanpur in Criminal Bail Application No.276 of 2018 (Zibrail vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 2897 of 2017, under Sections 364 and 506 IPC and Section 3(2) 5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Roza, District Shahjahanpur whereby bail application of appellant was rejected.

¶8

According to the prosecution case F.I.R. was lodged against Jivrayal and Phulbabu alleging that on 1.12.2017 they kidnapped the daughter of the complainant and threatened her.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 2.12.2017 (more than seven months); having no criminal history; there is no independent witness; he has been falsely implicated in this case. On 2.12.2017 i.e. second day of the incident, the prosecutorix stated that my father had beaten her and ousted from his house and went to Shahjahanpur Railway Station from where she went to Delhi where she met with Jivrayal and she knows him since 2-3 years and when she was returning from Delhi along with him they were arrested by the police personnel at Shahjahanpur Railway Station. He had done nothing wrong with her. Subsequently, on 2.12.2017 the statement of the prosecutorix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she had stated that when she had gone to nature call at 4-00 a.m., Jivrayal had forcibly encircled and pressed her mouth along with another person. They were going to Roza along with her and police personnel arrested her and she does not want to say anything; no offence under Section 363 I.P.C. is made out and if he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with the evidence. He further submits that there is no likelihood of appeal being heard in near future.

¶10

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but admitted that the appellant has no criminal history.

¶11

For the foregoing discussions, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 20.02.2018 rejecting bail of appellant is hereby set aside.

¶12

Let appellant Zibrail involved in aforesaid case 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:-

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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

¶19

Office is directed to send the lower court record to the concerned court immediately, if it has been received.

¶20

Order Date :- 23.7.2018 OP

Zibrail v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zibrail v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Ram Niwas Vs VII A.D.J.

Jimmedar Singh Vs the Addl.Sessions JUDGE/F.T.C.-3 and Others

Nageshwar Alias Nagendra and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ram Sharan Alias Annu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamla Kant Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijendra Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another