Allowed

Mufeed Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2019BAIL/6077/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge Court allowed bail application for applicant Mufeed Ahmad accused under Sections 302, 201, 364 IPC. Court found no evidence against him, no criminal history, and implicated co-accused possession of evidence. Order not applicable to co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions preventing tampering with evidence, witness intimidation, and further offences.

Mufeed Ahmad Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6077 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Mufeed Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Imdad Siddiqui,Imran Ullah Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Awadh Bihari Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged on 14.8.2018 on the basis of suspicion against three accused persons, namely Jaid, Lallu @ Parvej and Mufeed alleging that on 9.8.2018, Navi Akhtar (son of complainant) was missing. Dead body was recovered and inquest and postmortem were conducted. According to postmortem report, cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging and hyoid bone was found fractured. Statement of Sameem Akhtar was recovered, he was nothing stated against the applicant. Statement of Tahseen Akhtar was recovered, he stated that applicant was indulged in this crime. Later on, on 29.8.2018, one rope (rassi) and vehicle used in this crime were recovered from the possession of co-accused Jaid and Lallu @ Parvej.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Nothing was recovered from the possession of applicant. There is no independent witness and no legal evidence against the applicant. F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of suspicion only. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present case. One rope (rassi) and vehicle used in this crime were recovered from the possession of co-accused Jaid and Lallu @ Parvej. He is languishing in jail since 13.9.2018 (near about five and half month) having no criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

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 applicant has no criminal history.

¶10

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion

¶11

on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶12

It is made clear that this order will not be applicable to other co-accused on the ground of parity.

¶13

Let applicant Mufeed Ahmad involved in Case Crime No. 732 of 2018, under Sections 302, 201, 364 IPC, Police Station Soraon, District Allahabad 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:

¶14

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

¶15

2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

5.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.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶20

Order Date :- 21.2.2019 A. Singh

Mufeed Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mufeed Ahmad 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

Nattho Devi Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Suman Vs State of U.P.

Mahanand Dwivedi Vs State of U.P.

Dhirendra Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Om Shakya @ Shivam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ranua Vs State of U.P.