Allowed

Naim and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2021BAIL/23425/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court judges an application for bail under Section 439 CrPC. The applicants seek release pending trial in a murder case. The court balances the severity of charges against the reliance on inadmissible confessional statements and reasonable apprehension of witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Applicants Naim and Nadeem released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each with standard conditions regarding non-tampering and appearance.

Naim and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23425 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Naim And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Firoz Haider Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri N.I. Zafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Firoz Haider, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 0030 of 2020, under Sections- 302, 201, 394, 411 and 34 IPC, P.S.Loni, District- Ghaziabad.

¶7

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. It is next submitted that the FIR lodged by Shushil Pal, informant against Yousuf with the allegation that the informant's elder brother who used to drive his Car under OLA Company was murdered and his vehicle was stolen. It is next submitted that the applicants are not named in the FIR and their names were surfaced on the basis of confessional statement of accused persons namely Yousuf, Shane Alam @ Shanu and Sahil. It is further argued that the confessional statements of the three accused persons are inadmissible in view of the Section 25 of the Evidence Act, except the confessional statements there is no evidence against the applicants to connect with the offence or with the stolen vehicle. Recovery of the parts of the alleged vehicle has been shown to be recovered from the possession of the applicants, for which there is no independent witness.

¶8

It has been assured on behalf of the applicants that they are ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make themselves available before the court whenever required. It has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and they are in jail since 10.1.2021 and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial and hence, the applicants may be released on bail during pendency of trial.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the

¶10

applicants.

¶11

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. The bail application stands allowed.

¶12

Let the applicants- Naim and Nadeem 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:-

¶13

The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶14

The applicants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶15

The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶16

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

¶17

The applicants 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.

¶18

The party shall file self attested computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶19

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶21

Order Date :- 23.10.2021

¶22

Akbar

¶23

Digitally signed by Justice Rajiv Joshi Date: 2021.10.25 17:16:18 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Naim and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naim and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Saini Vs State of U.P. and Another

Damanjeet Singh @ Tushar Vs State of U.P.

Khijju @ Jogendra Vs State of U.P.

Bablu Vs State of U.P.

Kamlesh Kumari Patel@ Kamlesh Kumari and Another Vs State of U.P.