Allowed

Anadil v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 May 2023BAIL/23976/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under Sections 304, 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC, the High Court granted bail to the applicant. The court noted uncertainty regarding the cause of death from the post mortem report and observed that bail for a co-accused had already been granted.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

Anadil Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:120135

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23976 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Anadil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Farid Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Farid Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ram Narayan Srivastava, learned AGA, for the State.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.59 of 2023, under Sections 304,323, 324, 504, 506 and 34 IPC, Police Station Asmouli, District Sambhal during pendency of the trial.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and three others under Sections 323,504 and 506 IPC and according to the FIR, applicant and other co-accused persons made assault upon the husband of the informant through wooden stick and kicks and fists and when her dever-Nazakat, nephew-Kamil and son-Asif tried to save him then co-accused persons ran away from spot. It is further mentioned in the FIR that due to assault made by co-accused persons, her husband, dever, nephew and son sustained injuries.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that although applicant is named in the FIR but only general role has been assigned to him and although when the statements of the injured witnesses were recorded then they stated that applicant was having iron rod in his hand but from the post mortem report it reflects, deceased did not die due to ante mortem injury and as

¶10

per post mortem report Doctor did not even disclose immediate cause of his death and observed that he will disclose the cause of death after receiving the report of histopathological and toxicological analysis.

¶11

He next submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history and in the present matter he is in jail since 22.2.2023.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant further pointed out today that bail application of co-accused Nafees has been granted by this Court vide Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 23972 of 2023 and, therefore, applicant may also be released on bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA although opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

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

¶15

Although applicant is named in the FIR along with three others and during investigation injured witnesses stated that he was having iron rod in his hand but as per post mortem report deceased sustained four ante mortem injuries but his cause of death could be disclosed by the Doctor and according to the Doctor, opinion with regard to cause of death could only be given after receipt of report of histopathological and toxicological analysis, therefore, I find force in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant that it appears, from the post mortem report, deceased did not die due to ante mortem injury.

¶16

Further, co-accused Nafees has been granted bail today after disclosing entire facts of the case and applicant is not

¶17

having any previous criminal history, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶18

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

¶19

Let the applicant- Anadil 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:-

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

Order Date :- 29.5.2023 SKM

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anadil v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anadil 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

Deepak Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Sukhlal Vs State of U.P.

Monis Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Waseem Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Nafees Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others