Allowed

Jane Alam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2023/625/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application in a murder case. The High Court weighed the evidence on record and the applicant's conduct, granting bail subject to standard conditions ensuring the applicant does not interfere with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a bail bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions not to tamper with evidence or witnesses.

Jane Alam 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. - 625 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Jane Alam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiva Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajiva Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Srivastava, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking bail for the applicant in Case Crime No. 115 of 2021, under Sections 34, 302, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Pasgawan, District Kheri.

¶7

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 05.05.2021 against seven named accused persons, including the applicant, stating that all the accused persons had attacked the informant's brother Naeem Khan with sword, knife and other sharp edged weapons causing serious injuries to him, he was taken to a hospital where he was declared dead.

¶8

In the statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he reiterated the FIR version. However, the Police claims to have recorded a joint statement of seven other persons, all of whom stated that the deceased Naeem used to abuse persons on petty issues, on the date of incident he had abused the applicant due to election results, the applicant picked up knife from a cucumber shop and stabbed him. They stated that Nazakat, Manna (applicant) and Rabi Ullah had supported the applicant.

¶9

After investigation, the police exonerated three of the named accused persons Acchan, Manna and Jaleef and a charge sheet was submitted against four persons including the applicant.

¶10

The trial court is proceeding and statements of three witnesses of facts and three other formal witnesses have already been recorded. In the statement given by the informant before the trial court he supported the FIR allegation but in his cross examination, he stated that he came to know about the incident when a hue and cry was raised, upon hearing which he reached on the spot of occurrence. Thus he is not an eye witness of the incident.

¶11

PW2 examined before the trial court is the deceased wife Saina Bano, who had supported the FIR allegation and stated that the place of incident was visible from her home and when she reached the place of occurrence, the accused persons were running away.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this statement of PW2 is at variance with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she has stated that her husband was brought in an injured condition to her house and when she inquired as to what had happened, she was was told about the incident and she had not stated that the incident was seen by her from her her house.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this witness has tried to improve her case during the trial.

¶14

Be that as it may, it is undisputed that all the witnesses of facts have already been examined. Three of the formal witnesses have also been examined by the trial court. The applicant is languishing in jail since 09.05.2021 and in case he is released on bail he will not be in a position to influence the witnesses who have already been examined. There are a total of 23 witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet and the trial is not likely to conclude soon.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the co-accused Manna, Nazakat and Rabiullah have already been granted bail by orders dated 22.03.2023, 29.03.2023 & 29.03.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 10773 of 2021, 103.85 of 2021 & 10673 of 2021 respectively.

¶16

Without making any observation which may affect the merit of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶17

Accordingly, this bail application is allowed .

¶18

Let the applicant Jane Alam be released on bail in Case Crime No. 115 of 2021, under Sections 34, 302, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Pasgawan, District Kheri on furnishing a bail bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject o following conditions:-

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 7.4.2023 Pradeep/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jane Alam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jane Alam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

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

Mahendra Mishra and Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rupesh Vs State of U.P.

Ram Mohan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko.

Navjot Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sangeeta @ Sangeeta Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko.