Allowed

Amir v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2019BAIL/9422/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed bail to the applicant, Amir, who was accused of shooting and causing the death of a victim. The Court noted lack of independent witnesses against him and his clean criminal record, finding it a fit case for bail despite the serious nature of the charges.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9422 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Amir Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- A.Z.Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶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 against four accused persons, namely Ashif, Amir, Nawajish and Irfan alleging that on 25.11.2018 they shot fire at Shahin, she received two gun shot injuries, resultantly died. Specific role of firing was assigned to co-accused Ashif.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is general allegation against the applicant. There is no independent witness and no legal evidence against the applicant. Main role of firing was assigned to co-accused Ashif. The case of applicant is distinguishable from the co-accused Ashif. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present case. He is languishing in jail since 7.1.2019 (near about two months) 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 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.

¶9

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.

¶10

Let applicant Amir involved in Case Crime No. 103 of 2018, under Sections 302/34, 506 IPC, Police Station Teetrion, District Saharanpur 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

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

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 6.3.2019

¶18

A. Singh

Amir v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amir 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

Shriram Vs State of U.P.

Usha Vs State of U.P.

Mohit Pandey @ Chhotu Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Shivam Vs State of U.P.

Anand Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Savej @ Shevi Vs State of U.P.