Allowed

Shakir v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2023BAIL/3265/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of the Allahabad High Court granted bail to an applicant accused of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The court noted uncertainty regarding the trial conclusion, one-sided police investigation, and jail overcrowding, applying Article 21 and a Supreme Court dictum to allow bail without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to strict conditions of appearance and conduct.

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

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:148641

¶3

Reserved On:- 19.07.2023 Delivered On:- 25.07.2023

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3265 of 2023 Applicant :- Shakir Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Narayan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Syed Ausaf Un Nabi, S.A.N.Shah

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth, J.

¶6

Heard Sri S.N. Singh; learned counsel for the applicant; Sri S.A.N. Shah, learned counsel for informant as well as learned A.G.A for State.

¶7

There is allegation in the FIR that daughter of the informant, Yasmeen, was married to the applicant 18 years ago in the year 2004. Because his daughter was unable to conceive and deliver child she was physically and mentally tortured by the applicant, the co-accused and other family members. They wanted to get rid of his daughter so that the applicant may remarry. On 04.09.2022 the applicant and co-accused persons beated his daughter very badly and when the informant reached there in the morning he was informed that his daughter is being treated in Medical College, Agra where she died on 06.09.2022 at 9:00 p.m. It was alleged that the applicant and co-accused persons have strangulated her to death.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially the the implication was made under section 304 IPC but later charge-sheet was submitted only under section 306 IPC. He has pointed out to the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police wherein they stated that

¶9

¶10

the applicant was not in the house when the deceased committed suicide by way of hanging. Deceased herself committed suicide by way of hanging and the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is in jail since 29.09.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶11

Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the submission. He submitted that the deceased was done to death by the applicant and his family members. It is a case of murder and not of offence of abetment of suicide. The applicant wanted to marry another girl since the deceased was unable to conceive after about 18 years of her marriage and hence they caused her death and after the death of the daughter of informant all the accused persons vanished from the hospital. They did not got statement of deceased recorded before the Magistrate while she was under treatment. It is further submitted that no family member of the matrimonial home of the deceased were present at the time of inquest proceedings.

¶12

Learned A.G.A has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the counsel for the applicant.

¶13

After hearing the rival contentions this Court finds that the deceased was unable to conceive after marriage about 18 years of her marriage. In the post-mortem report no other sign of injury has been found except the ligature mark on her neck. Had she been done to death by the accused persons some mark of injury should have been found but it is not the case.

¶14

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial;

¶15

¶16

one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 ; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant, Shakir, involved in Case Crime No. 477 of 2022, under Section- 306 IPC, Police Station- Ramgarh, District- Firozabad, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶18

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(iv) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

¶23

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If 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.

¶24

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶25

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶26

Order Date :- 25.07.2023 Rohit

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shakir v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakir 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Daulat Ram Vs State of U.P.

Shaillendra@Shailend Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ashok Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Anand Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nakul Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another