Allowed

Saeed Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 May 2022BAIL/16631/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of the applicant accused in a murder case. The court noted FIR delays, lack of video evidence connecting the applicant to the incident, and explained criminal history. Bail was granted with strict conditions for trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions regarding trial attendance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16631 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Saeed Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Joshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashutosh Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant 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. 684 of 2021, under Sections 302, 34 IPC, Police Station Thakurdwara, District Moradabad.

¶7

As per the FIR version the deceased aged about 21 years was called by the applicant alongwith one Mohsin @ Gurjar from his house on 02.12.2021 and on the same day at about 09.00 PM the deceased in a state of shock rushed inside the house; drunk water and when asked about his bad condition he informed that applicant and Mohsin had taken him on their motorcycle and have mercilessly beaten him. It is thereafter that deceased fainted and ultimately died due to injuries.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR has been lodged on 03.12.2021 at 08.43 PM and that inquest was conducted at 04.20 in the early morning on 03.12.2021 in which the informant is also a witnesses but there is no reference of the fact that the deceased was beaten by the applicant. Learned counsel also states that there is almost a delay of 24 hours in lodgement of the FIR, which is not explained. It is contended that the video footage has subsequently been traced out and is referred to in G.D. Entry No.33 in which another accused namely Junaid was seen beating the deceased and other two persons namely Sohail and Mohsin @ Gurjar were also seen but the applicant was not seen in the video clip. It is urged that criminal history of the applicant in two cases i.e. one under the Cow Slaughter Act and other under the Gangsters Act have been explained and he has been enlarged on bail in those cases. Submission is that none of the evidence collected during the course of investigation connects the applicant with commissioning of offence. It is further argued that the applicant is in jail since 04.12.2021 and the trial is not likely to conclude shortly and that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will

¶9

cooperate in the conduct of trial.

¶10

Learned AGA and Sri Ashutosh Singh, counsel for the informant, although opposes the bail application but aforesaid contentions advanced on behalf of the applicant have not been shown to be false or incorrect.

¶11

Having considered the respective submissions advanced; perused the materials placed on record; considering the fact that the applicant is not shown to have beaten the deceased and there is delay in lodging the FIR and the criminal history in other two cases have also been explained, 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.

¶12

Let the applicant - Saeed Ahmad 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:-

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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.

¶20

Accordingly, the present bail application is allowed.

¶21

Since the role of applicant is separate and distinct from other co-accused persons namely Junaid and Mohsin @ Gurjar as such grant of bail to applicant would not entitle them for any parity and their case shall be dealt with on its on merits.

¶22

Order Date :- 19.5.2022 Ashok Kr.

¶23

Digitally signed by ASHOK KUMAR Date: 2022.05.19 18:34:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saeed Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saeed Ahmad 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

Tarkeshwar Ojha and Another Vs State of U.P.

Munnalal Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Dilip Yadav Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Sonu Alias Rajesh Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chukkha Vs State of U.P.

Shanker Vs State of U.P.