Allowed

Rustam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dept. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC24 Mar 2023/327/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J. allowed bail for the applicant Rustam in a murder case. The court highlighted discrepancies in the informant's identification of the grave and the prior grant of bail to a co-accused facing similar allegations.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties in like amount, subject to specific conditions.

Rustam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 327 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Rustam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dept. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Nath Dubey,Anil Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri S.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, learned Addl. Government Advocate-I.

¶6

By means of the instant application the applicant Rustam S/o Naseer seeks bail in Case Crime No. 692 of 2022, under sections 302, 201, IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh.

¶7

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a first information report (F.I.R.) lodged on 22nd of July 2022 at 15.28 hrs. against four named accused persons, including the applicant alleging that the informant's daughter had gone from her home on 12th of July 2022 stating that she was going to get some money from her husband/co-accused Salman, but she did not come back. On 21st of July 2022 co-accused Sikandar came to the informant's house and told that her daughter had been killed and her dead-body had been buried near Sai river, and that co-accused Naseem also knew the entire things. It has further been alleged in the F.I.R. that that co-accused Sikandar had threatened to kill her daughter.

¶8

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail-application it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶9

The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith the

¶10

relevant material, collected during investigation.

¶11

The relevant extract of the case-diary annexed with the affidavit filed in support of the bail-application indicates that on 23rd of July 2022 the informant gave a statement supporting the FIR version and on the same day she took the Investigating Officer to burial ground near Sai river and she pointed towards a Grave and told that her daughter's dead-body was buried in the indicated grave.

¶12

It has further been stated in the affidavit that the co-accused Sikandar, against whom the informant has alleged that he had threatened to kill the deceased, has already been granted bail by means of an order 25th of November 2022 passed by the Sessions Judge at Pratapgarh and by the same order bail application of the applicant has been rejected.

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the facts that the informant has implicated the accused persons on the basis of suspicion and regarding co-accused Sikandar she has stated that he had threatened to kill the deceased; that the case-diary revealed that the informant herself identified the grave of the deceased, without disclosing as to how she came to know about the Identity of the grave; that co-accused Sikandar, against home there is an allegation that he had threatened to kill the deceased, had already been granted bail and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant Rustam S/o Naseer be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 692 of 2022, under sections 302,

¶16

201, IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶17

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶18

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶19

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶21

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶22

Order Date :- 24.3.2023 A.Nigam

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rustam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dept. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rustam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dept. Home Lko.

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

Vinay Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and 3 Others

Avaneesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Prakash Kumar Sinha Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Mithun Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Dept. of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Ankur Rastogi @ Shakti Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kamaal Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko