Allowed

Vaseem v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2021BAIL/10867/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the bail application filed by Vaseem, accusing him of murder and affray. Relying on parity with co-accused whose bail was granted, the court held that prior rejection for others does not preclude bail. The applicant was released on personal bond and sureties subject to conditions against tampering and intimidation.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Vaseem released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering and intimidation.

Vaseem Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10867 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Vaseem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Singh,Arvind Kumar,Mayank Yadav,Satya Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Imran Ullah,Mohammad Zakir,Prakash Chandra Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri O.P. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Mohd. Zakir, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No.671 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 342, 352, 302, 307 and 308 IPC, P.S. Parikshitgarh, District Meerut with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. FIR was lodged against 13 accused persons including applicant and that only general role of attacking deceased and injured persons has been attributed to all the accused persons by alleging that all the accused persons including applicant have attacked the deceased and injured persons with lathi, sticks, guns, pistols and tabal etc. It was submitted that as per prosecution version, in the alleged incident two persons namely Kamrool and Mujassim have died and some others have sustained injuries but there is no such specific evidence that which of the accused has caused fire-arm injuries to deceased persons. It was pointed out that in post-mortem report of

¶8

deceased Mujassim, four injuries have been shown on his body and as per post-mortem report of Kamrool, he has sustained only one injury and that no specific role has been assigned to applicant. It was submitted that applicant has no motive to indulge in any such incident. Alleged recovery of country made gun shown from applicant is false and there is no independent witness of alleged recovery. Learned counsel has further submitted that similarly placed co-accused Ikhtedar, Rizwan and Julkarnain have already been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court, the copies of which are available on record. Learned counsel has submitted that bail applications of co-accused Zeeshan and Amin have been rejected by coordinate Benches of this Court but co-accused Zeeshan has criminal history of five cases including cases of heinous offences, and that co-accused Amin was also having criminal history of three cases. It is submitted that it is well settled law that bail to an accused cannot be refused merely on the ground that another Bench of the Court has declined the bail of other co-accused. It has further been argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.02.2018, having no previous criminal history and that in case, applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for first informant have opposed the prayer for bail and argued that applicant is named in FIR and that in alleged incident two persons have been murdered and that six persons have sustained injuries. It was also submitted that bail of co-accused Ikhtedar was challenged before Hon'ble Apex Court, however, that petition was disposed of with liberty to complainant/prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail before this court and direction was also made to the trial court for expeditious disposal of trial preferably by the end of December, 2020. Learned counsel for

¶10

the first informant has argued that applicant cannot be granted bail on the ground of parity only and in this connection, learned counsel has placed reliance upon case of Gaffar Vs. State of U.P. Criminal Misc Bail Application No.1903/2009, decided by this Court on 11.09.2009.

¶11

Perusal of record shows that in this case, though two persons have been murdered and six persons have sustained injuries but only general role of attacking the deceased and injured persons with lathi, sticks, guns, pistols and tabal etc. has been attributed to all the 13 accused persons including applicant. Similarly placed co-accused namely Ikhtedar, Rizwan and Julkarnain have already been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court, whereas, bail applications of two accused persons namely, Zeeshan and Amin have been rejected by this Court. Here, it would be pertinent to mention that Division Bench of this Court in case of Nanha vs. State of U.P. (1993 Criminal Law Journal 938) has made the observations as under;

¶12

"The Prior rejection of the bail application of one of the accused cannot preclude the court from granting bail to another accused whose case has not been considered at the earlier occasion. The accused who comes up with the prayer for bail, and who had no opportunity of being heard or placing material before the court at the time when the bail of another accused was heard and rejected, cannot be prejudiced in any other manner by such rejection."

¶13

In the case of Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. (2014) 16 SCC 508, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering the matter on the ground of parity, totality of circumstances has to be considered. It was also held that while granting bail on the ground of parity, the Court must focus upon the role of accused. In the instant matter considering entire facts including statements of injured witnesses, it appears that the case of applicant has parity with co-accused persons, who have

¶14

already been granted bail.

¶15

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegations, period of custody and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that a case for bail is made out. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant Vaseem involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶17

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

2.The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶19

3.The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶20

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶21

5.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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶23

Order Date :- 26.11.2021 Neeraj

Vaseem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaseem 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Pinki and Another Vs State of U.P.

Gurdayal Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Vs State of U.P.

Vijnesh @ Jasveer and Another Vs State of U.P.

Satyendra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Pushpa Devi Vs State of U.P.