Allowed

Shahzad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2020BAIL/3949/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted bail to the applicant pending trial in a murder case. Release is conditioned upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, with specific undertakings not to tamper with evidence, seek adjournments, or absent from court without cause.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding court attendance and evidence tampering.

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

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3949 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Shahzad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Rana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Shahzad, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 432 of 2019, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC, Police Station Pilkhuwa, District- Hapur, during pendency of trial.

¶7

Submission is that applicant was not named in the FIR. He has been implicated on the basis of extra judicial statement of coaccused, Lalu, s/o Harpal Singh, who is husband of the deceased. He himself is co-accused and has confessed that he got his wife killed with the help of the applicant and his brother-in-law, Pradeep, because she was not having good character. It has been submitted that implication of the applicant on the basis of such statement of co-accused will not secure his conviction. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit and he is languishing in jail since 15.10.2019. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶10

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶11

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶12

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶15

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶16

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶17

Order Date :- 27.1.2020 Noman

Shahzad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahzad 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

Atul Vs State of U.P.

Faijal Khan Alias Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Shilendra Vs State of U.P.

Ram Babu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipin Sharma @ Vaibhav Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Chandra Pal Vs State of U.P.