Ayyub v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
The court allowed a bail application moved by Ayyub, alleging the accused was falsely implicated in an accident case resulting in death, noting he has no criminal antecedents.
What did the court decide?
Released on personal bond and two sureties on executing conditions against tampering with evidence and intimidating witnesses.
What the court decided
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33248 of 2020
Applicant :- Ayyub Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Upadhyay,Krishna Dutt Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Narsingh Pandey
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Heard over bail application moved by the applicant, Ayyub, in Case Crime No. 309 of 2019, under Sections498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Gunnaur, District-Sambhal.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA representing the State. Perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number because of being husband of the deceased and is languishing in jail since 17.03.2020; he is of no criminal antecedent; it was an accident and instantly deceased was taken to hospital nearest to the place of occurrence; it was a Government Hospital, from where, she was referred to specialized hospital, where she was admitted for treatment but could not saved; as per First Information Report, information of this accident was given by the applicant's side to the informant side; marriage was of six years standing and informant and other witnesses in their statements under Sections 161 as well as 164 Cr.P.C. have not supported the case of prosecution, rather had said to get this case lodged upon the information given by other persons, but in real he came to know that it was an accident; co-accused Yusuf, has been enlarged on bail, in this very case crime number in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3090 of 2020, by coordinate Bench of this Court; Medical officer in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has categorically said that deceased was not in a position to give any dying declaration, hence it was not recorded, rather intensive treatment was given to the deceased; there is no likelihood of applicant's fleeing from course of justice or tempering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence bail has been prayed for.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant charged under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Ayyub
- respondent
State of U.P.
Coram
Ram Krishna Gautam
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · December
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/33248/2020
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court