Allowed

Imran v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Dec 2022BAIL/57588/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application under Section 439 CrPC, ruling that inordinate trial delay without effective prosecution challenge warrants enlargement on bail. The court imposed standard conditions regarding witness tampering and appearance.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed. Applicant directed to be released on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57588 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Imran Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ansar Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By means of this bail application the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.688 of 2018 in Sessions Trial No.138 of 2019 at Police Station-Banna Devi, District-Aligarh under Sections 328, 302, 201 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 12.11.2018.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh on 10.11.2022.

¶7

Shri Ansar Ahmad, learned counsel assisted by Ms.Sandhya Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. There is no direct evidence against the applicant. This is a case of circumstantial evidence. The chain of incriminating circumstances against the applicant is not complete. Only evidence against the applicant is of being last seen with the company of the deceased. The prosecution witness of last seen has admitted that he had met the first informant on

¶8

05.11.2018. The deceased went missing on 01.11.2018. However, the fact of last seen was not disclosed to the informant by the said witness for no good reason on 05.11.2018. As per the prosecution, the said fact was disclosed by the witness to the first informant on 08.11.2018 when the F.I.R. was lodged. Similarly, the other witness had admitted that he had last seen the deceased sitting with the applicant on 01.11.2018. He came to Aligarh on 06.11.2018 but did not disclose the fact of last seen to the first informant on the said date. The delay in lodgment of the F.I.R. is fatal to the prosecution case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case. The applicant resides in Aligarh with his family and is not a flight risk. The applicant is a law abiding citizen who has cooperated with the police investigation and shall join the trial. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶10

The applicant is in jail since 12.11.2018. The trial is moving at an snail's pace and is nowhere near conclusion. Inordinate delay in conclusion of trial has caused indefinite imprisonment of the

¶11

applicant. The delay in the trial has violated the fundamental right of the applicant to a speedy trial.

¶12

Shri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. He does not contest the criminal history of the applicant as disclosed in the bail application.

¶13

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant- Imran 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 subject to following conditions.

¶16

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶18

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly

¶20

make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

In case any averment made in the bail application or the submissions during the argument are found to be false or in case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶22

It is clarified that no observation made in this bail order shall influence the trial proceedings.

¶23

Order Date :- 16.12.2022 Ashish Tripathi

¶24

Digitally signed by ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI Date: 2022.12.21 12:58:39 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Imran v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran 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

Collector Vs Asgar Ali

Dinesh Vs Lakshmi Devi Bhalla and 5 Others

Smt. Usha Devi and 4 Ors. Vs Sone Ram Sharma and 2 Ors.

Prakhar Saxena Vs State of U.P.

Sainath Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Leela Devi Vs State of U.P.