Allowed

Abid v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2020BAIL/8566/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted bail during the trial phase to the applicant charged under Sections 302 and 201 IPC for the murder of a nine-year-old daughter. The court noted the late inclusion of the applicant's name based on a delayed witness statement and reliance on a co-accused's confessional statement. No incriminating evidence was recovered. Bail was allowed on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, subject to conditions including attendance and non-tampering with evidence.

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

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8566 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Abid Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Surendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 4 of 2019, underSections 302 and 201 I.P.C., P.S. Simbhawali, district-Hapur, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

The incident is alleged to have taken place on 6.1.2019 and it was reported on 7.1.2019 by the informant against unknown assailant. It was mentioned in the FIR that on 6.1.2019 at about 3:45 p.m. daughter of the informant Shahreen alias Nanhi, aged about nine years had gone to the cane thresher of Pramod Tyagi and when she did not return home till 10:30 p.m. a searched was launched for her and on the next day at about 8:15 a.m. dead body of the daughter of the complainant was recovered from the sugarcane field of Baleshwar Dayal Tyagi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was not named in the first information report. His name as an accused in the present case surfaced for the first time in the statement of witness Ayan, which was recorded after six months of the incidents on 6.7.2019, in which he has stated that he had seen three persons of his village, one of them was Zakir. He did not know the names of other two persons. He next submitted that the implication of the applicant in the present case is based upon the confessional statement made by the co-accused, Zakir before the police after he was taken into custody on 11.2.2019, which is wholly inadmissible against him. The evidence of witness Ayan does not inspire any confidence in view of delay of six months in his coming forward for getting his statement recorded. There is no explanation as to why he had kept quite for six months when he had seen the applicant along with other accused. No incriminating article or material has been recovered either from the applicant or on his pointing out. It is also pointed out that similarly placed co-accused, Nawaz

¶9

Shareef has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2323 of 2020 vide order dated 17.01.2020. He lastly submitted that the applicant, who is in jail since 17.01.2020 and has no criminal antecedents to his credit, is also entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

¶10

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of the punishment, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.

¶12

Let the applicant-Abid be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

(a) The applicant shall attend the court according to the conditions of the bond executed by him.

¶14

(b) 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.

¶15

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 27.2.2020 MN/-

Abid v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abid 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

Sanjay Bhartiya @ Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Dr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brijendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramroop Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sachchitanand Pandey @ Sachchidanand Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Bhanwar Singh Vs State of U.P.