Allowed

Shakib v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2023BAIL/49925/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 49925 of 2018, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant, Shakib, who was accused of murder and armed offenses. The court noted significant delays in the trial and the violation of Article 21 due to indefinite detention, allowing the application subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant shall be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to five conditions including appearance in court and no tampering with evidence.

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

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49925 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Shakib Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajrshi Gupta,Dileep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pankaj Bharti

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajrshi Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 238 of 2018 (Session Trial No. 969 of 2018), under Sections 147, 452, 302, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Purkazi, District Muzaffarnagar, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the applicant and three other named accused persons are said to have barged into the house of the informant on 4.6.2018 at about 7.15 pm and are stated to have fired at the brother of the informant Abad. The co-accused person Vasihat is stated to have fired from the licensed gun of his father causing his death.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. Learned counsel has also stated that the FIR is delayed by about more than 10 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has further stated that the prosecution has changed its version several times. During the investigation, the police had exonerated the other three co-accused persons as the main allegations were levelled against the applicant only. Learned counsel has also submitted that during the postmortem examination, an incised wound was also observed by the doctor conducting the said autopsy. It is next submitted that the FIR does not indicate about any sharp-edged weapon being carried out by any of the accused persons. It is next stated that later on

¶10

during the examination-in-chief of the eye-witness, Afsar, the said sharp-edged weapon has been introduced. It is also stated that the examination-in-chief was recorded in Court on 16.11.2018 and an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved after the said statement which was allowed by the Court and the other coaccused persons were summoned by it. The said summoning order has been challenged by the co-accused persons Vasihat, Arif and Liyaqat through Criminal Revision No. 328 of 2019. The Court was pleased to grant an interim protection to the applicants as it was directed that no coercive action shall be taken/executed against them. The said interim protection has been extended several times and is even effective to date. Learned counsel has further submitted that the co-accused person Asif, who was not named, has also filed Criminal Revision Defective No. 22 of 2020, which is also pending before this Court and has been clubbed with the criminal revision filed by Vasihat and two accused persons.

¶11

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There is no criminal history of the applicant except the case of Section 25 Arms Act instituted against the applicant in this particular case with respect to the recovery of the country made pistol. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.6.2018 and the trial is not proceeding any further. Learned counsel has stated that the fundamental rights have been put to test and Article 21 of the Constitution of India has not been followed with respect to the applicant. Under the circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail as there is no possibility of the conclusion of trial in the near future. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application and have stated that the applicant was named in the FIR and he has been assigned the role of having fired at the deceased person putting him to death by barging into his house. However, they are unable to dispute the fact that the trial has been stalled and there is no possibility of it proceeding in the near future.

¶13

Timely delivery of justice is an essential part of human rights. Denial of speedy justice is a threat to public confidence in the administration of justice as has been laid down by the Apex Court in Hussain & Another vs. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 1362.

¶14

The Supreme Court has laid down in the case of Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, AIR 2012 SC 949, (2012) 4 SCC 134, which is as follows :

¶15

"When the under trial prisoners are detained in jail custody to an indefinite period, Article 21 of the Constitution is violated. The trial is fixed for the appearance of the accused only and not even the charge has been framed in the case and there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial in the present circumstances.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial having possibility of disposal in near future, and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, 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- Shakib involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶18

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶21

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

¶22

v. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶24

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

¶25

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 on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶26

Order Date :- 8.2.2023 Shalini

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shakib v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakib 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

Ramdular Vs State of U.P.

Satendra @ Tallu Vs State of U.P.

Janak Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sultan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dhanmati Devi Vs State of U.P.

Satya Pal Singh Vs State of U.P.