Allowed

Shah Alam @ Gamgam v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 May 2023BAIL/16183/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding a murder charge, the court allowed the release of the applicant on bail. The judge noted the absence of evidence other than the co-accused's statement and the applicant's confession, alongside an explained criminal record, supporting the bail grant.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail via personal bond and two sureties on specific conditions.

Shah Alam @ Gamgam Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:113056

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16183 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Shah Alam @ Gamgam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bhaju Ram Pprasad Sharma,Arvind Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri B.R. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Suresh Bahadur Singh, learned AGA-I for the Staterespondent.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 78 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali, DistrictMaharajganj, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶9

FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown person under Sections 302, 201 IPC and according to the FIR, on 5.2.2023 the younger brother of the informant had gone from his house and did not return and on 6.2.2023, his dead body was found in the filed of Khooblal Dhobi.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant was not named in the FIR and during investigation, the name of the co-accused Jabbar was surfaced in the present matter and when he was arrested then he disclosed the name of the applicant and except the statement of co-accused Jabbar and confessional statement of the applicant, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record. He further submitted that applicant is having criminal history of two cases but his criminal history has been explained in the affidavit and supplementary affidavit.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA although, opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that except the statement of the co-accused and confessional statement of the applicant, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

¶12

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶13

Considering the fact that except the statement of the coaccused and confessional statement of the applicant, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record and criminal history of the applicant has been duly explained in the affidavit and supplementary affidavit, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant- Shah Alam @ Gamgam be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, 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 or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶20

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶21

Order Date :- 22.5.2023

¶22

KK Patel

¶23

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shah Alam @ Gamgam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shah Alam @ Gamgam 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

Jitendra Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Saif Ali Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shanker Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pradeep Jain Vs State of U.P.

Khalid Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others