Allowed

Mujeeb v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 May 2022BAIL/10694/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was allowed by the High Court at Allahabad in a murder/abetment case under IPC. The court held bail appropriate as the body showed no injuries, death was by drowning, the evidence was circumstantial and incomplete, and there were no eyewitnesses.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions ensuring presence in court and non-tampering.

Mujeeb Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10694 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mujeeb Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Meraj Ahmad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dileep Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dileep Kumar Pandey for the informant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.385 of 2021, under Sections 364, 506, 302, 201, 120-B IPC, Police Station Kithore, District Meerut.

¶7

As per the prosecution version brother of informant had gone for work on 16.3.2021 at about 6.00 pm but did not return and a missing report was lodged. Since the brother could not be traced, as such the informant visited various places and ultimately it is alleged that co-accused Danish in a state of annoyance informed that he has eliminated the deceased and in the event the informant makes any further efforts he will ensure his elimination in similar manner. Danish is stated to have married Hina with whom the deceased was also in love. Apprehensions are expressed that the deceased has been killed by Danish and Hina and that necessary action be taken.

¶8

Three days thereafter an unknown body is found and in the postmortem report the cause of his death is asphyxia due to drowning.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant states that in the missing report the clothes worn by the missing person is at variance from the cloths found on the dead body and that there is no evidence that his death itself is homicidal. Learned counsel further states that there is no eye witness of the alleged act of murder and the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence in which the chain of events is not complete. It is also stated that the allegation is otherwise against Danish and Hina and the motive that applicant was also in love with Hina appears weak. It is further urged that the applicant has no prior criminal history and is incarcerated in jail since 24.9.2021 and the trial is not likely to conclude shortly and that the applicant undertakes

¶10

that he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the conduct of trial.

¶11

Sri Dileep Kumar Pandey appearing for the informant states that location of applicant has been found close to that of the deceased as per the call records and since the motive is strong for murdering the deceased, as the deceased and the applicant were in love with same lady, as such the bail application is liable to be rejected.

¶12

Learned AGA opposes the bail application but facts as have been urged on behalf of the applicant are not seriously disputed.

¶13

Having considered the respective submissions advanced; perused the materials placed on record; considering the fact that the dead body of the deceased does not contain any apparent signs of injury and the cause of death is asphyxia due to drowning and there is no eye witness of the crime and all events to form the chain of events are not shown to be complete as of now, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, at this stage. Above observations made in the bail order shall, however, not be construed as expression of opinion, on the merits, at the stage of trial.

¶14

Let the applicant - Mujeeb 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:-

¶15

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

(iii) 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.

¶18

(iv) 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.

¶19

(v) 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.

¶20

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the 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.

¶21

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶22

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed.

¶23

Order Date :- 26.5.2022 Anil

¶24

Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR PATEL Date: 2022.05.27 12:06:38 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mujeeb v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mujeeb 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vimal Yadav @ Villa Vs State of U.P.

Ramaasrya Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Lal and Another Vs State of U.P.

Jabir Vs State of U.P.

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

Nagendra Vs State of U.P.