Allowed

Farman v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2022BAIL/2519/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a murder case. The court found the role of the applicant to be general, the author of the fatal injury unascertained, and several co-accused already on bail. Considering these facts and the lack of evidence tampering risk, the court granted bail with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions preventing tampering, ensuring court appearance, and complying with trial dates.

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

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2519 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Farman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Siya Ram Verma,Deepak Kumar Verma

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant-Farman seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No.962 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

As per F.I.R., lodged by Deepak (brother of the deceased), it has been stated that on 15.11.2020, at about 06:45PM, when his brother Pintu (deceased) and nephew Sandeep had gone for walking and reached in front of the house of Faiz Mohd., where one pouch of water was lying there in torn condition on which Pintu slipped due to which few drops of water got sprinkled upon Faiz Mohd and his other companions who are named in the F.I.R. and five other persons who are residents of the same colony. All these persons including the accused applicant started abusing the deceased and informant's nephew and when they resisted, all the persons started assaulting them with lathi, danda and bricks and when Ram Narayan who was passing through the passage had seen the occurrence, had reported the same to the informant and thereafter, the informant, his father Sri Ram and uncle Ram Kishor and some villagers went to the occurrence place and they found that all the assailants were assaulting the deceased, due to which he had died and the assailants had also beaten them also. As per post-mortem report, the deceased is found to have sustained one stab wound at the side of nose bone deep, contused swelling in occipital region and hematoma was also found with underline bond fracture. Apart from that there were two abraded contusion on the top of the shoulder and hand. The cause of death was ante mortem head injury.

¶9

It has been argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the accused applicant that accused applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further argued that the occurrence had happened due to sudden quarrel and the accused applicant along with eleven named and five other persons had assaulted the deceased by various weapons, therefore the author of the fatal injury could not be ascertained. It is further argued that coaccused Meraj, Mohd. Mohsin @ Lal, Babloo @ Sarvar Alam, Sarfaraj Alam, Mohd Alam, Smt. Anjum, Iklakh, Faiz Mohammad, Mohd. Talib @ Rehan have been granted bail by coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 7.4.2021, 25.05.2021, 25.05.2021, 25.05.2021, 17.06.2021, 14.07.2021, 06.08.2021, 09.08.2021 and 10.08.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.8458 of 2021, 21062 of 2021, 21099 of 2021, 21104 of 2021, 22649 of 2021, 3237 of 2021, 30456 of 2021, 18103 of 2021 and 26360 of 2021, copy of the said bail orders is annexed as Annexure No.9 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application. Apart from the merits, the ground of parity has also been claimed. It is further argued that as many as six persons are said to have received injuries and are alleged injured witnesses. The injured person Anil has been found to have one stitched wound on his person but the doctor did not give any opinion about the injury. Sri Ram was found to have received one abrasion but the doctor opined it to be a simple injury. It is further argued that Ram Kishor has been found with one abrasion which is also stated to be simple in nature, injured Dashrath received two abrasions which are also opined to be simple in nature. The injury of Deepak has been found to be two abrasions which are also opined to be simple in nature.It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history as stated in para 40 of the affidavit and is in jail since 28.10.2021.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the FIR. The deceased Pintoo received as many as four injuries and there are six injured witnesses of the incident, hence looking to the participation of the applicant prayer for bail be rejected.

¶11

After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that the present case is a case of sudden provocation and general role to the applicant has been assigned along with ten other named accused persons and five unknown persons, there is no specification to the role of the accused persons and the role as to who caused the fatal injury cannot be ascertained, co-accused Meraj, Mohd. Mohsin @ Lal, Babloo @ Sarvar Alam, Sarfaraj Alam, Mohd Alam, Smt. Anjum, Iklakh, Faiz Mohammad, Mohd. Talib @ Rehan have been granted bail by coordinate Benches of this Court and this Court.

¶12

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Let the applicant-Farman, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

(iii) 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.

¶17

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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 I.P.C.

¶18

(v) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶19

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶20

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.

¶21

The bail application is allowed .

¶22

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

¶23

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned. 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 :- 9.2.2022

¶25

Zafar

¶26

(Samit Gopal J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI Date: 2022.02.11 09:57:22 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Farman v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farman 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

Shivam Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harwati Vs State of U.P.

Ram Pratap Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Sitaram Vs State of U.P.

Hariom @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Uramila Devi Vs State of U.P.