Allowed

Abbas v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2019BAIL/3596/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to the applicant, Abbas, accused of abetment to murder and causing grievous hurt in the death of a child. The court allowed bail after two years of custody, noting the applicant's clean record and lack of independent evidence, while imposing standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3596 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Abbas Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nazrul Islam Jafri,Afzal Ahmad Khan Durrani Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri V.K. Maurya (B.H.) learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶6

According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged against unknown persons on 7.6.2017(after two days of incident) alleging that on 5.6.2017 Shameer Khan(10 years old-son of complainant) was missing and dead body was recovered on 10.6.2017 from the factory/house of Abbas(husband of Jannati). Hyoid bone was found fractured. Deceased also sustained two abraded contusions on head and right eye. According to postmortem report, cause of death was found asphyxia due to ante mortem throttling. Later on, on suspicion, names of Jameel, Abbas, Jannati, Iqbal @ Babloo, Saukeen @ Sonu, and Sajid @ Dabbu were disclosed. In the confessional statement of applicant and co-accused, deceased Sameer while playing threw mixture of soap in the eye of Innu; Innu sustained problem in his eyes. Deceased was throwing matchsticks; Sajid (son of Jannati) slapped the deceased who became unconscious the accused persons disposed of his body by burying in the factory/house of Abbas.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.6.2017( one year and nine months) having no criminal history. There is no role of applicant in the incident. The applicant has been falsely implicated due to suspicion. There is no legal evidence except confessional statement of accused persons. There is neither any eye-witness account nor any independent witness. Specific role of giving slap to the deceased, was assigned to Sajid. The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Sajid. There is no possibility to get this case decided in near future. In case applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶9

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation, period of custody, gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let applicant Abbas involved in Case Crime No.1269 of 2017, under Sections 147, 363, 302, 201, 34 IPC, Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad 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:

¶11

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

¶12

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

The applicant 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.

¶16

Order Date :- 11.3.2019 OP

Abbas v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abbas 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramapati Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Kasim and 7 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Akhilesh Pal @ Maya Vs State of U.P.