Allowed

Tejpal @ Saleem v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2019BAIL/14824/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed bail to the applicant in a murder case under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, finding it appropriate given the co-accused had been released and the weapon recovered later from an open place.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions against tampering with evidence, commission of crime, and without seeking adjournments.

Tejpal @ Saleem Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14824 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Tejpal @ Saleem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jamaluddin Mohd. Nasir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Jamaluddin Mohd. Nasir, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This Bail Application (under Section 439 Cr.P.C.) has been moved for seeking bail in Case Crime No. 145 of 2016 under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., P.S. Salempur, District Bulandshahr.

¶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; co-accused, Pintu and Chhotu who are nephew (bhanja) of the present accused have already been granted bail. There is recovery made at the pointing out of the present accused as well as other co-accused of one 'darati' (sharp edged weapon) from the scrap which was near the river and also some clothes of the deceased were recovered at their instance, therefore, the case of the present accused would be at par with the other co-accused. It is further argued that accused was working in Ghaziabad as a labourer and was not present at the place of occurrence when this incident is said to have happened; the accused has no criminal history; the accused applicant is lying in jail since 18.03.2016; if the accused is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of bail and stated that the main role of causing injuries has been assigned to the present accused in confessional statement before police. In post-mortem report, the injuries are also found to have been caused by sharp edged weapon, hence post-mortem report supports the prosecution version.

¶9

According to the F.I.R., the chaukidar of the village had lodged the F.I.R. when he had found headless dead body of a lady, aged about 25-30 years old pursuant to which an unnamed F.I.R. was lodged. Mobile phone was recovered near the body of the deceased and the same was found registered in the name of the present accused, hence name of the accused has emerged as

¶10

accused in the present case.

¶11

Looking to the fact that that recovery of the said weapon is found to have been made from an open place three days after the occurrence and the other co-accused at whose instance, the recovery has been made have also been granted bail, quantum of punishment, nature of the offence and period of detention in jail, without expressing any opinion on the merits, this case is found to be a fit case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicant Tejpal @ Saleem 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 :-

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 24.7.2019 A. Mandhani

Tejpal @ Saleem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejpal @ 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

Babloo Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Javed Akhtar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bablie Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Babloo Vs State of U.P.

Ishwari Prasad Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Rajkumar (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another