Dismissed¶12

Mujiburrehaman v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 May 2023BAIL/21800/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Neutral Citation 2023:AHC:119633; second bail application (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21800 of 2021) under S.302 I.P.C. and S.4/25 Arms Act, Case Crime No. 86 of 2016, P.S. Saraimeer, district Azamgarh, alleging murder of applicant's wife; applicant Mujiburrehaman in custody since 20.4.2016, no criminal history; first bail application dismissed in want of prosecution on 11.1.2021; bail rejected on 26.5.2023 by Mayank Kumar Jain, J.; trial court directed to conclude trial preferably within six months.

What did the court decide?

Considering the entire facts and circumstances, submissions of counsel, nature of evidence and gravity of the offence, and without expressing any opinion on merits, the applicant is not entitled to bail and the bail application is rejected. ¶12

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Mujiburrehaman, accused in Case Crime No. 86 of 2016 under section 302 I.P.C. and section 4/25 Arms Act for the murder of his wife, is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶8

Court's answer

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude it preferably within six months without granting unnecessary adjournments, subject to full co-operation by the applicant.

¶14

Key takeaways

Any observation made in the order shall not be treated as a finding on merit and shall not prejudice the trial.obiter¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Mayank Kumar Jain, J.) rejected the second bail application of Mujiburrehaman, accused in Case Crime No. 86 of 2016, P.S. Saraimeer, district Azamgarh, under section 302 I.P.C. and section 4/25 Arms Act for the alleged murder of his wife. The prosecution case, as argued by the Additional Government Advocate, was that the postmortem report disclosed fifteen wound injuries on the deceased; a blood-stained knife and blood-stained T-shirt were recovered on the pointing out of the applicant; and eyewitnesses (the informant, his wife and Wahida Rehman) saw the applicant coming from the room with a knife where the deceased lay on the bed. The defence contended that the deceased committed suicide in a room closed from inside, that no one saw the applicant enter or leave the room, that no motive was assigned, that the FIR witness Sabir was not examined by the Investigating Officer, and that the applicant was in jail since 20.4.2016 without criminal history. The first bail application had been dismissed in want of prosecution on 11.1.2021. Holding that, on the nature of evidence and gravity of the offence and without expressing any opinion on merits, the applicant was not entitled to bail, the Court rejected the application, directed the trial court to conclude the trial preferably within six months without unnecessary adjournments, and clarified that its observations shall not be treated as findings on merit nor prejudice the trial.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:119633

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21800 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Mujiburrehaman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kishor Mishra,Firdos Ahmad,Pawan Kumar Vishwakarma,Siddharth Srivastava,Vijit Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Maurya

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed in for want of prosecution by another Bench of this Court, vide order dated 11.1.2021 passed Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 926 of 2018.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 86 of 2016, under section 302 I.P.C. and section 4/25 Arms Act, P.S. Saraimeer, district-Azamgarh with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶9

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present due to the reason that father-in-law of the applicant had taken a huge amount from the applicant when he was residing at Malasiya and when the applicant demanded his money his fatherin-law has refused. He next submits that the deceased has committed suicide. Her room was closed from inside. Neither anyone had seen the applicant entering the room nor coming out from the room. None of the witness heard the alarm at the time of incident. He also submits that no motive has been assigned to the applicant to commit the murder of his own wife. Statement of witness named in the FIR Sabir has not recorded by the Investigating Officer. No one had seen the applicant to commit the murder of the deceased. No incriminating article or material has been recovered either from the applicant or on his pointing out and the recovery of knife was found from the open piece of land. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 20.4.2016 having no criminal history and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in

¶10

trial.

¶11

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and argued that the applicant has committed the murder of his own wife. As per postmorterm report there were fifteen wound injuries on the person of the deceased. Blood stains knife and blood stains T-Shirt were found on the pointing out of the applicant. He also submits that eye witnesses informant, his wife and Wahida Rehman had given eye witness account that applicant was seen coming from the room with knife where the deceased was lying on the bed.

¶12

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and gravity of the offence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant is not entitled for the bail, therefore, the bail application is rejected.

¶13

Any observation made above shall not be treated as any finding on the merit and shall not prejudice the trial.

¶14

However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude it preferably within six months without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties and subject to full co-operation by the applicant.

¶15

Order Date :- 26.5.2023 Faridul

¶16

Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mujiburrehaman v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mujiburrehaman v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gavendra Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Dularey Vs State of U.P.

Praveen Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ramveer Singh Vs State of U.P.

Haider Raini Vs State of U.P.