Allowed

Nawab v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2019BAIL/48724/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was disposed of by granting relief to the applicant. The court found a prima facie case for bail due to hostile prosecution witnesses and delay in FIR lodging, releasing the applicant on bond and sureties conditioned against tampering with evidence or witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties subject to conditions including no interference with prosecution witnesses or evidence and appearance before trial

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

¶1

Court No. - 51 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48724 of 2018 Applicant :- Nawab Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Akbar Shah Alam Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶3

Counter affidavit and supplementary affidavit have been filed today on behalf of the parties, are taken on record.

¶4

Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Shishodia, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Sri Rajesh Mishra, learned AGA appearing for the State.

¶5

This bail application moved on behalf of applicant praying to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.458 of 2018, under Sections 302, 201, IPC, Police Station Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur.

¶6

The contention of the leaned counsel appearing for the applicant is to the effect that the applicant has been named in the FIR and the FIR itself has been lodged after much delay and much planning; that the alleged incident is of 21.08.2018 and the FIR has been lodged on 25.08.2018. The further contention of the counsel for the applicant is that it was the village Chaukidar who had informed the Imran that the body of the brother of the Imran is hanging from a tree, however, the said Chaukidar namely Sewaram has been examined as P.W.-1 and he has not supported the prosecution and has been declared as hostile in S.T. No. 820 of 2018, copy of statement has been annexed as annexure no. S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 09.04.2019. It has also been informed that even the wife of the deceased namely Smt. Shabnam has been examined as P.W.-2 in S.T. No. 820 of 2018 and she too has been declared as hostile, copy of her statement has been annexed as annexure no. S.A.-2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 09.04.2019. Further contention is that the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.08.2018 with no previous criminal history.

¶7

Learned AGA appearing for the State opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶8

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.08.2018, with no previous criminal history, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this

¶9

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.

¶10

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

¶11

Let the applicant Nawab 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:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 3.7.2019 VKG

Nawab v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nawab 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

Chhotelal @ Guddu Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Ram Kailash Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Tripathi Vs State of U.P.

Ram Chandra and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sheshnath Goand Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Pushpa Vs State of U.P.