Allowed

Baba @ Iqbal Khan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Oct 2023BAIL/43228/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application, the Allahabad High Court allowed the release of the applicant on bail under the Indian Penal Code, considering jail overcrowding and fundamental rights, despite the laga criminal charge of murder.

What did the court decide?

The applicant involved in the crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amount with specified conditions.

Baba @ Iqbal Khan Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195817

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43228 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Baba @ Iqbal Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rishabh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Baba @ Iqbal Khan, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 1727 of 2021, under Section- 302 IPC, Police Station- Sahibabad, District- Ghaziabad during pendency of trial.

¶9

This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on 20.9.2022.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that after rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, statements of two witnesses have been recorded. All of them have stated that country-made pistol was found lying near leg of the deceased, when they reached on the place of incident. None of the witnesses deposed before the trial court that it was the applicant, who caused the alleged offence. He has further submitted that applicant had friendship with the deceased and the deceased was murdered by someone else. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case because of being friend of deceased. Before the trial court,only two prosecution witnesses out of 24 have been examined. Trial will take time to conclude. The applicant has criminal history of one case to his credit, wherein he has been acquitted. He is languishing in jail since 19.9.2021. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Satendra

¶13

Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, judgement dated 11.7.2022 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime 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 with the following conditions that :-

¶14

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

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 11.10.2023 Ruchi Agrahari

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RUCHI AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Baba @ Iqbal Khan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baba @ Iqbal Khan 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

Awanish Balmiki Vs State of U.P.

Pravesh Vs State of U.P.

Kamlesh Kumar Kharwar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others