Allowed

Suhail v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2019BAIL/17022/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge Court granted bail to the appellant Suhail in a criminal case involving alleged attempt to murder, referencing Article 21 of the Constitution and a Supreme Court precedent, subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties on a like amount, with conditions regarding cooperation in trial and non-interference with witnesses.

Suhail Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17022 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Suhail Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga,Abhishek Kumar Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Bharti

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Shri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the informant and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Suhail with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 1055 of 2018, under Sections 307, 504, 506, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, DistrictMuzaffarnagar , during pendency of trial.

¶7

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with some ulterior motive. It is further submitted that injury caused to the injured has not caused any internal damage and initially only one injury was found by the doctor of Swami Kalayandev Male Hospital, Muzaffarnagar. In the subsequent medical report of K.M.C. Hospital and Research Centre, Meerut City two injuries were found by the doctor.It has been submitted that second injury found at K.M.C. Hospital and Research Centre, Meerut City is not genuine. There was no intention of the applicant to kill the injured and only to frighten the injured fire was made.Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in pragraph-33 and 34 of the affidavit filed in support of the application. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.9.2018. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any

¶9

indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant Suhail involved in the 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 :-

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 12.9.2019 Atul kr. sri.

Suhail v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suhail 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vipin Kumar @ Pappi Vs State of U.P.

Chameli Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Vs State of U.P.

Ram Murti Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ashutosh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Satish Lodhi Vs State of U.P.