Allowed

Mohammad Ibram @ Imran v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2019CRLA/4542/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the Special Court held that the Special Judge erred in rejecting the bail application. Considering the co-accused had already been granted bail and the circumstances of the case, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the order rejecting bail, and ordered the appellant's release on bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15.04.2019 set-aside; bail application allowed; appellant released on bail subject to personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions regarding cooperation and no tamperin

Mohammad Ibram @ Imran Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4542 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Mohammad Ibram @ Imran Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Zia Naz Zaidi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

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

¶6

Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the State today in the Court, which is taken on record.

¶7

The present criminal appeal has been filed U/s 14(A)(2) of S.C./S.T. Act against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.04.2019 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) (P.A) Act, Moradabad, in Case Crime No. 176 of 2018, under Section 302, 201/34 I.P.C, and 3(2) (5) SC/ST Act, Police StationThakurdwara, District- Moradabad, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

¶8

In para 3 of the short counter affidavit sworn by Rajesh Kumar, Circle Officer Sadar, District Moradabad, it has been stated that the information/notice with regard to filing of the instant Criminal Appeal arising out of Case Crime No. 176 of 2018, under Sections 302, 201/34 IPC & Section 3(2)2(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Thakurdwara, District Moradabad, filed by the appellant has been served upon the complainant's brother, namely, Mahipal Singh.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He has next submitted that the appellant is not named in the F.I.R. and his name has surfaced for the first time in the statement of Nandu and Virendra Singh recorded on 13.10.2018. He has further submitted that the other evidence against the appellant is in the form of extra judicial confession made before Gaurav Bishnoi and Shailendra Kumar. As per the post-mortem report, the age of the victim has been noticed to be 30 years whereas as per version of Mahipal son of Shanker Singh, Arjun son of Shanker Singh and Lila Devi wife of Shanker Singh, mother/brother of deceased, the victim deceased was aged about 45 to 50 years which further makes the prosecution story doubtful.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that similarly placed co-accused Kashim and Shahnawaz @ Shanu have already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 655/2019 and 656/2019 vide order dated 30.05.2019 and the case of the appellant stands on the same footing as that of other co-accused who has already been granted bail. Lastly, it is submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 19.11.2018 and in case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of the bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶12

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, I find that the court below has acted wrongly in rejecting the bail application and the impugned order dated 15.04.2019 is liable to be set-aside and appeal is liable to be allowed .

¶13

The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.04.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-II, Moradabad, is set-aside and the bail application of appellant stands allowed .

¶14

Let the appellant Mohammad Ibram @ Imran be released on bail in Case Crime No. 176 of 2018, under Section 302, 201/34 I.P.C, and 3(2) (5) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Thakurdwara, District- Moradabad, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be

¶19

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 appellant to prison.

¶20

Order Date :- 18.10.2019 Zafar

Mohammad Ibram @ Imran v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Ibram @ Imran v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Amar Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mathura and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Vishram and Another Vs State of Up and Anr.

Manohar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Shyam Narain Dubey and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.