Allowed

Achchhe Hasan @ Najmul Hasan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Feb 2020BAIL/6065/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. regarding a murder appeal, the Court allowed the applicant's plea, noting he was not named in the FIR. Bail was granted subject to strict conditions to prevent evidence tampering and ensure court attendance, despite algebraic discrepancies in the facts alleged against him.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties on conditions including prohibition from tampering with evidence and mandatory trial attendance.

Achchhe Hasan @ Najmul Hasan Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6065 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Achchhe Hasan @ Najmul Hasan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kiran Chaudhary,Jai Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Sunil Kumar Singh on behalf of the first informant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Jai Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and the learned A.G.A and perused the record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant, Achchhe Hasan @ Najmul Hasan , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 227 of 2019, under Sections 302, 307, 504, 506, 216, 201, 34, 120-B, 116 I.P.C. & Section 4/25 Arms Act, registered at P.S. Chetganj, District Varanasi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The recovery as alleged from the pointing out of the applicant is false and planted without their being any independent witness. The same does not gets connected with the incident. In the occurrence for which the F.I.R was registered against 04 persons namely Rajendra Upadhayay, Rajat, Upadhyay, Pooja Mishra and Ram Vichar Upadhyay there was not even a whisper about the participation of the applicant in the said matter. The present incident is alleged to have taken place on 21.09.2019 at about 07:30 a.m. for which the F.I.R was lodged on the same day at 13:35 hrs. In the second statement of co-accused Rajendra Upadhyay recorded on 04.10.2019 it is mentioned that he went to the house of the applicant wearing blood stained clothes and sought shelter on which the said clothes were taken and fresh clothes were provided by the applicant and the same were concealed by him and a country made pistol, cartridge and mobile was also concealed by him. Apart from the said evidence there is no other legal or credible evidence against the applicant in the present matter. It is further argued that the co-accused persons namely Mahendra Pratap Rai, Kumari Vatsala Upadhyay, Madan Lal, Krishna Mohan Mishra @ Bhullan have been granted bail by different Benches of this Court vide orders dated 17.01.2020, 03.02.2020,09.12.2019, 10.01.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 1434 of 2020,2232 of

¶9

2020, 54578 of 2019 and 56540 of 2019. The applicant is in jail since 30.09.2019 having no criminal history.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A and learned counsel for the first informant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

Let the applicant, Achchhe Hasan @ Najmul Hasan , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶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

Order Date :- 24.2.2020 AS Rathor

¶20

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Achchhe Hasan @ Najmul Hasan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Achchhe Hasan @ Najmul Hasan 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

Anit @ Tota Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Vs State of U.P.

Ram Sewak Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Zakir Vs State of U.P.

Rajmangal Vs State of U.P.

Reetu Vs State of U.P.