Allowed

Atiq Ahmad and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Nov 2022BAIL/30622/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30622 of 2022, the High Court allowed bail to two accused persons summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in a murder case, emphasizing fairness and granting relief subject to specific conditions to ensure trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicants on personal bond and two sureties each, subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and trial conduct.

Atiq Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30622 of 2022 Applicant :- Atiq Ahmad And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Imran Mabood Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

¶4

The applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. C-06 of 2005 (ST No. 416 of 2007), under Sections 302/149 IPC, P.S. Khakhreru, District Fatehpur.

¶5

According to prosecution case, on the basis of application 156(3) Cr.P.C. F.I.R. was lodged on 16.7.2005 against three four accused persons, namely Shankar, Bahav and Sakeel alleging that on 31.5.2005 they killed Gobardhan. Charge sheet has been submitted against Shankar, Bahav and Sakeel. Subsequently accused applicants along with others have been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by trial court vide order dated 1.5.2008.

¶6

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused namely Shahab @ Ghulam Shahabuddin, Gayas Alias Gayas Uddin Khan, Mussan Alias Azhar Ali and Zaheer Alias Zaheer Ahmad have already been granted bail (order annexed at page nos. 49 to 55) by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 7.3.2017, 28.8.2017, 15.3.2018 and 22.12.2017 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7592 of 2017, 26062 of 2017, 9836 of 2018 and 50676 of 2017, since the role of the applicant is not distinguishable with the role of co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. The applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicants were not named in the F.I.R. They were summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Offences levelled against the applicants are not attracted in the present case. There is no legal evidence and independent witness against the applicants. They are languishing in jail since 21.11.2005. The applicants have criminal history of one case, in which they are on bail after conviction.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicants and admitted that applicants were summoned under

¶8

Section 319 Cr.P.C.

¶9

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail. However, any observation made herein-above, will not affect the trial of the case.

¶10

Let the applicants- Atiq Ahmad and Mateen Ahmad @ Mattu, who are involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶11

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.

¶12

(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against them under Section 229-A IPC.

¶13

(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶14

(iv) The applicants 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 them in accordance with law.

¶15

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicants.

¶16

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

¶17

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶18

Order Date :- 4.11.2022 RavindraKSingh

¶19

Digitally signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.11.04 16:13:31 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Atiq Ahmad and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atiq Ahmad and Another 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

Riyasat Vs State of U.P.

Ekta Vs State of U.P.

Lokesh Som Vs State of U.P.

Arif Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pawan Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rani Devi Vs State of U.P Thru, Secretary(Home) at Lko