Allowed

Mohd. Sahil S/O Nisar Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC27 May 2022/4245/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant Mohd. Sahil involved in a murder case citing parity with a co-accused who had been released previously, imposing strict conditions regarding trial attendance and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding trial attendance and conduct.

Mohd. Sahil S/O Nisar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4245 of 2022 Applicant :- Mohd. Sahil S/O Nisar Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Irfan Alam,Rahul Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶2

Heard Syed Ahmad Mehadi holding brief of Sri Irfan Alam, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA representing the State.

¶3

Counter affidavit and 'Vakalatnama' filed by Sudhanshu Shekher Awasthi is taken on record.

¶4

Heard over bail application moved by the applicant, Mohd. Sahil, in Case Crime No. 159 of 2021, under Sections302, 120B, 34 I.P.C. Police Station- Lambhua Nagar, District-Sultanpur. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent; he has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and is languishing in jail since 15.04.2021.

¶5

The first information report was got lodged instantly on the day of occurrence i.e. 13.04.2021 by informant against five accused persons wherein three were named and one suspected to be offender and other one was unknown; informant was eye-witness account of the occurrence; applicant was not named in this report; his name surfaced in the statement of mother of deceased, wherein he said that the applicant made a clue by gesturing when other three proceeded for place of occurrence with two other eye-witness account; nor he was present on the spot; merely on the basis of property in dispute, this implication is there; other than this suspicion, there is no evidence against the applicant; the role of fatal assault on the head of the victim through hockey has been attributed to two accused persons namely, Kaptan and Sultan,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.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the co-accused Safeena Bano has been granted bail by this Court on 1.4.2022 in Bail No. 9935 of 2021 and on the principles of parity the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶7

The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the

¶8

trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

¶9

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

¶10

Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the fact that the co-accused person namely, Safeena Bano, who has been assigned the similar role, has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 1.4.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9935 of 2021, therefore, on the principle of parity the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶11

Let the applicant Mohd. Sahil, involved in aforesaid case crime 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶12

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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 applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned.

¶17

Order Date :- 27.5.2022/Om

¶18

Digitally signed by OM PRAKASH MISHRA Date: 2022.05.28 14:50:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Sahil S/O Nisar Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Sahil S/O Nisar Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Israil Vs state of u.p. thru prin.secy. home lucknow

Kamal Vs State of U.P.

Anand Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Suraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Ravi Pratap S/O Raj Kumar (Short Term Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Sursati W/O Shiv Kumar Pasi Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy Home