Allowed

Khalid Khan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2019BAIL/4564/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Bail Application under Section 302 IPC, the Single Judge held that despite the applicant being in custody and facing severe charges, the case warranted bail. The court emphasized the complicity of co-accused but did not comment on the merits of the case while ordering release on bond with sureties and conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation with trial, non-tampering, and no unlawful activities.

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

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4564 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Khalid Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mrityunjay Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant has been falsely implicated being brother-in-law (Bahnoi) of main accused Rahmat Ali; that as per averments made in F.I.R. on 23.2.2017 at about 8:00 a.m. Rahmat Ali accompanied with his mother, brother and applicant came at house of first informant and caused incised wounds in abdomen and hand of his sister Poonam and his brother Sharookh threatened of life; that in F.I.R. applicant has not been assigned with any active role, however, during investigation co-accused Rahmat Ali in his confessional statement assigned applicant with role of catching hold of hands of deceased while it was alleged that video film of incident shows that applicant caught hold of deceased; that applicant did not caught hold of hands of deceased and in any case he has not been assigned with role of causing any injury to deceased; that case of applicant is clearly distinguishable from Rahmat Ali, who has been assigned with role of causing knife injury to deceased; that applicant has no criminal history; that applicant undertakes that he will not misuse liberty of bail; that applicant is in custody since 5.12.2018.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail.

¶8

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶9

Let the applicant Khalid Khan be released on bail in Case Crime No.74 of 2017, under Section 302 I.P.C., P.S. Chandpa, District Hathras, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶10

(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of

¶11

charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that he is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.

¶12

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶14

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶15

Order Date :- 8.2.2019 Kpy

Khalid Khan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khalid Khan 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

Indal Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash @ Lalla Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Vs State of U.P.

Lalu Vs State of U.P.

Babloo Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Yadav Vs State of U.P.