Allowed

Aas Mohammad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Mar 2019BAIL/35793/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail in the second bail application filed by the applicant, noting prima facie case out. The Court imposed standard conditions and directed expeditious trial under Section 309 Cr.P.C. citing specific precedents.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond with two sureties under standard conditions; trial directed to be expeditious under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

Aas Mohammad Vs State of U.P. — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35793 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Aas Mohammad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ved Mani Sharma,Niraj Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jamaluddin Mohd. Nasir

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri J. M. Nasir, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶6

Applicant has moved the present second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 241 of 2016 under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and section 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Meerut. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order of this Court dated 30.5.2017 passed in crl. misc. bail application no. 19249 of 2017.

¶7

I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the first bail rejection order.

¶8

It is contended that subsequent to the rejection of first bail application, the doctor has been examined and he in his statement has clearly stated that "mritak ke gardan ke alava sharir par anya koi chot nahi thi". Further contention is that even though the applicant is the husband, but the wife has committed suicide and there are no marks of injury on the body of the deceased. It is lastly contended that the accused applicant is in jail since 28.11.2016 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant .

¶10

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.

¶11

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also in view of the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dataram v. State of U.P.; 2018 (3) SCC 22, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.

¶12

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Aas Mohammad involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶15

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶17

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.

¶18

v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the learned counsel for the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶20

However, it is further directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

¶21

It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.

¶22

Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.

¶23

Order Date :- 8.3.2019

¶24

Kuldeep

Aas Mohammad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aas Mohammad 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surjeet Vs State of U.P.

Harnarayan Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Vipin Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Amir Asrar @ Akku Vs State of U.P.

Kaushal Vs State of U.P.

Shakib Vs State of U.P.