Allowed

Mohit Urf Bheem v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 May 2023BAIL/19071/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge held that the applicant, accused of murder, may be released on bail after imposing stringent conditions regarding attendance, evidence tampering, and future proceedings, noting his habeas corpus rights.

What did the court decide?

Allowance of the bail application; release of the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties with specific conditions.

Mohit Urf Bheem Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:105517

¶2

Court No. - 78

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19071 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mohit Urf Bheem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Shahnawaz Shah Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Syed Shahnawaz Shah, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Mohit Urf Bheem, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 409 of 2022, under sections 302, 34 IPC, P.S. Inchauli, District- Meerut.

¶8

The submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. In the first information report the applicant has not been named but his name has come into light on the information of Mukhbir Khaas. The recovery made from the possession of the applicant is not supported by any independent witness. Initially the FIR has been lodged under section 302 IPC and section 3(2)V SC/ST Act as the deceased was scheduled caste but during investigation the name of thee applicant figured as an accused who also belongs to the scheduled caste, hence after investigation the police deleted the section 3(2)V SC/ST Act. The case of the applicant is on the same footing with the case of coaccused Sonu who is named in the first information report has been released on bail by another bench of this court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 3268 of 2023 vide order dated 15.05.2023. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever

¶9

required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 27,10.2022 having no criminal history.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Mohit Urf Bheem, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶16

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶17

(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If

¶18

in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶19

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶20

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶21

The bail application is allowed .

¶22

Order Date :- 16.5.2023

¶23

RPD

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohit Urf Bheem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Urf Bheem 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sweta Sahu Vs State of U.P.

Muneesh Vs State of U.P.

Puneet Kumar Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manish Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Vs State of U.P.

Pappu Vs State of U.P.