Kafeel @ Kafeeluddin Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 75

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55799 of 2022

Applicant :- Kafeel @ Kafeeluddin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Waseem Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Despite service of notice upon the opposite party no. 2, no one has put in appearance on his behalf.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

¶7

By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant-Kafeel @ Kafeeluddin, who is involved in Case Crime No. 91 of 2022, under Sections 306, 363, 366, 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Fatehganj West, District Bareilly, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.

¶8

In this case, first information report was lodged on 06.04.2022 regarding an incident which took place on 03.03.2022 for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. against the applicant but after culmination of the investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant under Sections 306, 363, 366, 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 4 of POCSO Act.

¶9

The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant neither took away the deceased nor committed rape on her. The deceased has committed suicide due to her harassment by her family members with regard to Rs. 10,000/- which were withdrawn by the deceased from the account of her mother. It is also submitted that out of three prosecution witnesses of the fact i.e. Satyapal, Smt. Rajwati and Krishna Devi, two prosecution witnesses i.e. Satyapal and Smt. Rajwati have been examined before the trial court as PW-1 and PW-2 and the prosecution has refused to examine the third

¶10

prosecution witness namely Krishna Devi. Thereafter out of two formal witnesses, doctor has also examined and considering their statements, applicant who is languishing in jail since 09.04.2022 is entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the applicant took away the deceased and committed rape on her, therefore, when she returned back to her house, she committed suicide.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that all the prosecution witnesses of the fact have been examined. The trial of the applicant is proceeding as noted above, therefore, at this stage, this Court in exercise of power under Section 439 Cr.P.C. does not deem it appropriate to evaluate and discuss the evidence of prosecution witnesses in detail.

¶13

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to applicant, criminal history of the applicant, nature of injury and severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail at this mid stage of the trial.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶15

It is made clear that the observation contained in the instant order is confined to the issue of bail and shall not affect the merit of the trial.

¶16

However the trial court is directed to make an endeavour to conclude the trial, expeditiously, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties and in accordance with the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C.

¶17

Order Date :- 28.4.2023 Saurabh

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kafeel @ Kafeeluddin v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kafeel @ Kafeeluddin v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonu @ Sameer Vs State of U.P.

Shadab Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pradeep Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arun Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Indresh Pal Vs State of U.P.

Ram Naresh @ Khuni Vs State of U.P.