Allowed

Tahseel Khan @ Tahseen Khan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Jul 2021BAIL/6435/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 302 IPC where the applicant was not named in the initial FIR and prosecution relied on delayed eye-witness testimony, the court granted bail subject to specific conditions regarding presence in court and trial conclusion within one year, noting temporary release without sureties due to emergent circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Applicant enlarged on bail with personal bond; sureties required within one month of normal court functioning.

Tahseel Khan @ Tahseen Khan Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6435 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Tahseel Khan @ Tahseen Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Waseem Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant through virtual mode as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.262 of 2020, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station-Shahi, District-Bareilly is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is not even named in the FIR. The date of incident is 18.07.2020 of which the present FIR was got registered on 21.07.2020 by one Shyam Lal who is the Pradhan of the village by making a mention that the dead body of Sooraj Giri is lying in the abandoned condition. It is next contended that after 13 days of the incident, three alleged eye witnesses was created by the police who allegedly have seen the incident. It is further submitted that it is a million dollar question as to why these eye witnesses kept mum for 13-14 days. Besides this, it is next submitted that eye witnesses in their deposition before the police, have submitted that they have seen that the applicant was assaulting the deceased by his lathi and danda. There is no recovery of any incriminating material on the pointing out or from the possession of the applicant. The entire prosecution case hinges upon the circumstantial evidence in which after 14 days of the incident, name of the applicant figured up in a most shabby way of which no reliance could be placed. The further contention is that applicant has got a criminal history of four cases to his credit which have been duly explained in paragraph no.12 to the application. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.08.2020.

¶8

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the

¶10

parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant, Tahseel Khan @ Tahseen Khan , who is involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

(i) 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.

¶13

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶14

(iii) 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 IPC.

¶15

(iv) 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.

¶16

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶19

Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶20

The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶21

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

¶22

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 1.7.2021 Sumit S

Tahseel Khan @ Tahseen Khan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tahseel Khan @ Tahseen Khan 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

Abdul Vs State of U.P.

Akhilesh Sav Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Vicky Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Shankar Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Anuj Kumar Varma Alias Anuj Rastogi Vs State of U.P. and Another