Allowed

Aasim v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2019BAIL/911/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed a bail application in a murder case involving a country-made pistol. The court noted alleged accidental death, lack of eyewitnesses, co-accused on bail, and no criminal history of the applicant, granting bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to five conditions including not tampering with evidence, not intimidating witnesses, and

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 911 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Aasim Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Dutt Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

This case has been assigned by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice vide order dated 08.01.2019.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mayank Mishra, (B.H.), learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the record.

¶8

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged on 25.6.2015 after three days of the incident against four accused persons, namely, Irfan, Rijwan, Nasir and Aasim alleging that on 22.6.2015 they shot fire on Mustkim. He received one gun shot injury on head, resultantly died. During investigation, on 10.7.2015 final report was submitted and protest petition was filed and order for re-investigation was passed. Later on, charge-sheet was submitted against co-accused Nasir and Aasim and the above named accused were exonerated.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that final report was submitted on the ground that deceased Mustkim was in his field to check the animals with country made pistol at the night and due to mistake, country made pistol of the deceased was shot fire and deceased received injuries, resultantly died. Due to previous enmity, F.I.R. was lodged against four accused persons. Later on, on the statement of complainant and protest petition, by another I.O. charge-sheet was submitted and it was found that on exoneration of Irfan, the applicant had shot fire on Mustkim falsely. Except the statement of complainant, several persons were examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and stated that deceased was died unfortunately by shot fire accidentally by his own country made pistol. It is admitted fact that final report was submitted on 10.7.2015 and all persons were exonerated by the I.O. The incident is of night. There is no eye witness account. All story was developed later on after 10.7.2015. There is no independent witness. Co-accused Nasir has been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.10.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38714 of 2018. The applicant is languishing in jail since

¶10

7.5.2018 (more than eight months) having no criminal history; the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶11

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.

¶12

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 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.

¶13

Let the applicant Aasim involved in Case Crime No. 236 of 2015, under Sections 302/34 IPC, Police StationMoondapandey, District-Moradabad 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 :- 9.1.2019 OP

Aasim v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aasim 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Nath Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Pushpendra Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Kanhai Paswan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Suresh Pawar Vs State of U.P.

Mangal Singh Vs State of U.P.