Allowed

Sameer v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Mar 2023BAIL/57179/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant, Sameer, in a murder and grievous hurt case, distinguishing his role from the main accused who performed the unnatural cause of death. Bail was allowed with personal bond and two heavy sureties, imposing conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or pressuring witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to conditions regarding tampering, intimidation, attendance, and non-commission of further offenses.

Sameer Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57179 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sameer Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shikhar Awasthi,Neeraj Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohammad Zakir

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised. Learned counsel for the informant is not present.

¶6

Heard Shri Shikhar Awasthi, Shri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned counsels for the applicant as well as Shri V.K. Gupta, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.222 of 2022, under Sections 302, 323, 452, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Pahasu, District Bulandshahr, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the applicant and three other named accused person are said to have assaulted the son of the informant on 13.08.2022 at about 4:00 PM over a brawl with respect to irrigation of fields. The co-accused person Jalaluddin is stated to have hit the deceased person with lathi he was carrying, thereby causing grievous injury to him. The informant and other eye-witnesses are stated to have rushed to save him and are stated to have taken him to hospital whereby he was referred to higher medical centre and the injured person is said to have succumbed to the injury sustained later on.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has been shown just a member of the group that had formed to commit the offence and no overt act has been assigned to the applicant. As per the allegations in the FIR, the overt act of assaulting the deceased person has been assigned to Jalaluddin. Learned counsel has further stated that the said story of the prosecution further stands falsified on the ground that in the supplementary statement of the informant all the accused persons have been assigned general role. Even the role of co-accused person Jalaluddin has not been distinguished. Learned counsel has further stated that the cause of death is cardio-pulmonary arrest as a result of ante-mortem head injury. Several other submissions have been made on

¶10

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. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.09.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the applicant carrying the common intention to commit the offence as he was carrying a lathi in his hand and he was very much present at the time of offence, as such he is not entitled for bail.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, distinguishing the case of the applicant to the main accused person Jalaluddin, and 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.

¶13

Let the applicant- Sameer 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.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 15.3.2023 Ravi Kant

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sameer v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Paswan Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Anjani Chourasiya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Charan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rahul @ Upendra Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Preeti Vs State of U.P.