Dismissed

Muzammil v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Apr 2023BAIL/54451/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a second bail application by Muzammil in a criminal case involving sexual offences and evidence tampering. The court held that since the trial is at its conclusive stage and no new grounds were presented, bail was not a fit case.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 54451 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Muzammil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Zaid,Jai Shanker Malviya,Pratik J. Nagar,Zafar Abbas Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Shiromani Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. This is the second bail application. First bail application was rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.4.2019.

¶6

Heard Sri Zafar Abbas, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Shiromani Yadav, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 318 of 2018, U/S 376 and 506 IPC and 67-A of the Information Technology Act, Police Station Pakbada, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has not put forward any new ground for bail except that the appliant is incarcerated in jail since 10.10.2018. Learned counsel has stated that already the trial is at its conclusive end, as the statement of the applicant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded and date is fixed for the defence evidence. Learned counsel has stated that there is no likelihood of the applicant tampering with the evidence. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant has no criminal history and in case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have reiterated the said arguments tendered by learned counsel for the applicant that the trial is at its conclusive end, thus, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶10

Since no new ground has been given by learned counsel for the applicant and the trial is at its conclusive end, I do not find it a fit case for bail. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶11

The bail application is, accordingly, rejected .

¶12

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case pending before the trial court be decided expeditiously, in view of the principle laid down in the recent judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

¶13

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.

¶14

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶15

Order Date :- 11.4.2023 Shalini

¶16

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

Muzammil v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Muzammil v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanchan Devi Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Anshul Vs State of U.P.

Rizwan Vs State of U.P.

Basanti Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Geeta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others