Allowed

Mohammad Irfan Khan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2023BAIL/440/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application allowed the applicant's prayer for release on bail in a case involving murder and robbery charges. The court acknowledged the gravity of offences but considered the custody duration and stage of trial fit for granting bail subject to sureties and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, conditioned to avoid tampering with evidence and commit no further crimes.

Mohammad Irfan Khan Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 440 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Mohammad Irfan Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vidya Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Vidya Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 1261 of 2017, under Sections 394, 302, 411 of IPC, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution story, when Sanjay, brother of the informant was going to deposit Rs.1.70 lakh in the bank on 14.12.2017 at about 01:30 PM, three unknown assailants are stated to have come on a motorcycle and robbed his brother after firing at him.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is neither named in the FIR nor committed any such offence as alleged in it. There is no evidence whatsoever against the applicant except his confession before the police. The said confession is not admissible in law. Learned counsel has also stated that three persons including the applicant were arrested by the police on 26.12.2017 and a recovery of Rs.1.05 lakh is shown from the applicant. The said money cannot be connected to the robbed money as the applicant is a buffalo trader. To buttress his argument, learned counsel has placed much reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Venkatesh alias

¶10

Chandra vs. State of Karnataka, AIROnline 2022 SC 595, whereby it is categorically stated that the recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is not a mere formality and the statement made thereupon to the police personnel, is not admissible against him.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that it is stated in the FIR that the said incident was seen by the daughter of the deceased person Manshi and she had informed the informant about the said incident. Learned counsel has argued that no statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the said daughter of the deceased has been recorded. Even no test identification parade was conducted as per Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.12.2017 having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶13

It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 SC 712 that we are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, evidence on record, stage of trial

¶15

and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for releasing the applicant on bail.

¶16

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the bail application is allowed . Let the applicant Mohammad Irfan Khan involved in 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 :-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶23

Order Date :- 10.2.2023 Siddhant

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohammad Irfan Khan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Irfan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Preetam Singh@ Pintoo Vs State of U.P.

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Harish Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raja Singh Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar Bind Alias Manje Vs State of U.P.

Naseema Vs State of U.P.