Allowed

Nasaruddin Alias Rahisuddin v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2020BAIL/3881/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crim. Misc. Bail Application allowed. The High Court Court No. 16, held that despite the serious nature of the offence, the applicant is a fit case for bail as no specific motive was assigned to him and the injury was not clearly attributed. Bail granted with a personal bond, two sureties, and specific undertakings regarding evidence tampering, attendance, and absence during trial stages, includin

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding attendance, non-tampering with evidence, and strict prohibition of absence during trial.

Nasaruddin Alias Rahisuddin Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3881 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Nasaruddin Alias Rahisuddin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Narayan Singh(Kushwaha) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anand Priya Singh,Anurudh Kumar Prajapati

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Narayan Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anand Priya Singh, learned counsel for the informant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Nasaruddin @ Rahisuddin seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 561 of 2019, under Sections 302 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Etah.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that as per the prosecution case, six person including the applicant have been assigned the general role of pulling the deceased Sonu inside the house and assaulting him with knife, farsa and chura . He has further drawn the attention of the Court to the postmortem report of the deceased, in which, doctor has found one incised wound on the front of neck. The injury no. 2 as noted in the postmortem report, is under lying the injury no. 1. He further argued that no motive whatsoever has been assigned the applicant for the aforesaid offence. The applicant is in jail since 02.08.2019.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. argued that one of the co-accused named Smt. Farha, who is the wife of the deceased, since marriage which was against the wish of the family members subsequently got strained and the family members and the wife of the deceased were having animus and committed the aforesaid offence. He further argued that the body of the deceased was found in front of the house of Naseeruddin fatherin-law of the deceased. The present applicant has been assigned the specific and active role of participation in the said offence, therefore, he does not deserve to be granted bail.

¶9

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of acquisition and the gravity of offence, the fact that six person have been assigned the general role of assaulting the deceased with knife, farsa and chura but there is one incised wound on his neck without any specification about the author of the injury. The other arguments as raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be resisted, therefore, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant Nasaruddin @ Rahisuddin be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶15

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶16

(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶17

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be 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 applicant to prison.

¶19

The bail application is allowed. Order Date :- 4.2.2020 AKK

¶20

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Nasaruddin Alias Rahisuddin v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nasaruddin Alias Rahisuddin 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mauji @ Mohar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Jattan Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Ram Sanehi Vs State of U.P.

Bachcha Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sarwar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Babloo Vs State of U.P.