Allowed

Yusuf @ Kalia @ Yunus v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Apr 2022BAIL/13584/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of Yusuf @ Kalia @ Yunus, holding that he made out a case. The court noted that key prosecution witnesses became hostile and denied prior statements, attributing the firing role to a co-accused, who was already on bail. The applicant was detained since 2014 with no criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in like amounts subject to specific conditions.

Yusuf @ Kalia @ Yunus Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13584 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Yusuf @ Kalia @ Yunus Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sikandar Raza Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Sikandar Raza, learned counsel for the accusedapplicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Yusuf @ Kalia @ Yunus for grant of bail, in S.T. No. 375 of 2014 (arising out of Case Crime No. 445 of 2014), under Sections 302, 307, 323 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station Kadar Chowk, District Badaun, during trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication and the applicant has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶8

It is further submitted that the F.I.R. in the instant case has been lodged only on the basis of suspicion and apprehension as it was not possible for any of the prosecution witnesses including the injured and informant to have identified any accused person without any source of light.

¶9

It is further submitted that even if the case of the prosecution is believed on its face, the informant as well as the injured witnesses namely Mainaz and Musharraf in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have attributed the role of firing to the co-accused Bittu and no specific role of any kind has been assigned to the instant applicant and co-accused Anis. It is also submitted that identically placed co-accused person namely Anis has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 25.11.2021 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 52530 of 2019.

¶10

It is further submitted that during the course of trial the statement of three persons namely Mainaz, Musharraf and Firoz (informant) have been recorded and all these witnesses have chosen not to support the version of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and on being cross examined by the

¶11

public prosecutor they have stated not to have given any statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and, therefore, there is no iota of evidence available against the applicant and keeping in view the fact that injured person as well as the informant have been declared hostile during the course of investigation and no factual witness is remained to be testified, further detention of the applicant in the above-mentioned case is futile and in absence of any previous criminal antecedents the applicant may be released on bail.

¶12

It is next submitted that applicant is in jail in this case since 19.11.2014 and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. He is also not carrying any criminal history.

¶13

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed heinous offence and, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that informant Firoz and two injured persons namely Mainaz and Musharraf have chosen not to support the prosecution version when they were testified before the trial court they have also denied their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer. The role of firing in the statement of the injured persons recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was attributed to co-accused Bittu. The role of instant applicant is at par with co-accused Anis, who has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Applicant is in jail in this case since 19.11.2014 and is also not having any criminal history.

¶15

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed .

¶16

Let the accused/applicant- Yusuf @ Kalia @ Yunus involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the

¶18

investigation or trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶21

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

¶22

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶23

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶24

Order Date :- 18.4.2022 Praveen

¶25

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR Date: 2022.04.18 17:58:22 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yusuf @ Kalia @ Yunus v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yusuf @ Kalia @ Yunus 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahid@ Sahil Vs State of U.P. and Anohter

Satyaveer Vs State of U.P.

Moin Vs State of U.P.

Dilip Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepika Shukla @ Nitil Vs State of U.P.

Mahtab Vs State of U.P. and Another