Allowed

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

Allahabad HC24 Mar 2023/770/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted bail to an applicant who was not named in the F.I.R. but was apprehended by police, noting lack of interrogation of named accused and witness testimony based on assumptions rather than personal knowledge while imposing standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond and two sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions regarding evidence tampering, witness pressure, and court appearance.

Kamaal Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Civil… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 770 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Kamaal Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Subodh Kumar Pandey,Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Sanjay Srivastava, learned Addl. Government Advocate.

¶6

By means of the instant application the applicant Kamaal Ahmad S/o Bhure seeks bail in Case Crime No. 166 of 2022, under sections 147, 341, 302, 120B, IPC, P.S. Dhaurahara, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶7

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a first information report (F.I.R.) lodged on 7.4.2022 against three named accused persons- (1) Khagga, (2) Anuj and (3) Naresh and the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The F.I.R alleges that the informant's brother Brijlal was having an old animosity with the named accused persons; that the informant's son Rajesh used to support his uncle Brijlal and due to this reason at about 8 .m. on 6.4.2022 when the informant was returning from village Kanchanpur on a motorcycle alongwith his son, the named accused persons stopped him and fired a shot with a pistol, due to which the informant's son died.

¶8

In the statement of the informant recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. he reiterated the F.I.R. version. The investigating officer recorded the statements of several villagers, all of whom stated that the deceased was a person of unstable mind and the informant, his son Akhilesh and wife of his deceased son Poonam were annoyed with the deceased Rajesh. All the

¶9

witnesses expressed an apprehension that due to the aforesaid annoyance the informant himself has got his son extinguished. All of them further stated that although there was a dispute with the named accused persons, it was not so big that they would have killed the deceased.

¶10

On 8.4.2022 the investigating officer has recorded in the case-diary that he has received information from an informer (Mukhbir) that the informant, his son Akhilesh and the deceased's wife Poonam were disappointed with the activities of the deceased and they got him killed through contract killers Nuruddin, Imar Ali, Nihaal, Waseem and the applicant. The Police claimed to have apprehended the applicant on 9.4.2022 and it is alleged that upon being apprehended the applicant fired at the Police Party, from which no person was injured and in the retaliatory firing the applicant suffered a gun-shot injury on his leg. A .315 bore pistol is said to have been recovered from the applicant and the prosecution further claims that the applicant has confessed that he had given effect to the incident with the pistol, which has been recovered from him.

¶11

I have considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.

¶12

The informant claims to be an eye-witness of the incident and he has lodged the F.I.R. against three named accused persons and he has assigned a specific motive against the named accused persons. During investigation no interrogation has been made from the aforesaid three named accused persons; the injured has reiterated the F.I.R. version in his statement given to the Investigating Officer; that all the other persons examined during investigation have given statement, which state that the statements were given on the basis of assumptions and no

¶13

person has stated any fact on the basis of his personal knowledge and also keeping in view the fact that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languageing in jail since 9.4.2022 and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant Kamaal Ahmad S/o Bhure be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 166 of 2022, under sections 147, 341, 302, 120B, IPC, P.S. Dhaurahara, District Lakhimpur Kheri, 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

( Subhash Vidyarthi, J. )

¶21

Order Date :- 24.3.2023 A.Nigam

¶22

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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.