Allowed

Faheem Khan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 May 2023BAIL/57306/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 57306 of 2022, this Court allowed a second bail application filed by Faheem Khan in a criminal trial for death by causing grievous hurt. The Court noted that crucial witness statements indicating multiple accused and a doctor's report showing no visible injury were not placed before the coordinate bench during the first bail denial. Finding the applicant's ca

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount to the satisfaction of the court.

Faheem Khan Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:101747

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57306 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Faheem Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandrakesh Mishra,Abhishek Kumar Mishra

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Pradeep Kumar Shukla

¶6

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri D.S. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhishek Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pradeep Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Varun Kumar Agnihotri, learned brief holder for the Staterespondent.

¶9

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 314 of 2021, under Sections 304, 452, 147, 323, 34 IPC, Police Station- Nawabganj, DistrictBareilly, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶10

This is the second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed by co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 1.9.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 50567 of 2021 and when the Court, who rejected the first bail application of the applicant, released the instant second bail application then the matter is listed before this bench as this bench is dealing with the present matter after the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that although, this is the second bail application of the applicant and on 1.9.2022, the first bail application of the applicant was dismissed and at the time of rejecting the first bail application of the applicant, the coordinate bench of this Court observed that although, in the FIR general role has been attributed to all the accused persons but in their statements witnesses gave specific role to the applicant of causing head injury to the deceased but at the time of deciding first

¶12

bail application of the applicant, full and correct facts could not be placed before this Court.

¶13

He further submitted that admittedly in the FIR only general role has been attributed to all the accused persons and from the perusal of the statements of all the witnesses including informant, it appears that although, they stated that applicant tossed the head of the deceased on the wall several times but they further stated that thereafter other accused persons also tossed him on the wall and thereafter all the accused persons tossed the deceased on the ground, therefore, from the statements of the witnesses, it appears that applicant is not the only accused, who tossed the head of the deceased on the wall and the ground but all the accused persons tossed the head of the deceased on the wall and the ground.

¶14

He further submitted that from the perusal of the statement of the doctor, which also could not be placed at the time of first bail application, it appears that deceased did not sustain any visible injury and this fact completely belies the statements of the witnesses, therefore, considering this fact, applicant may be released on bail. He further submitted that all the accused persons have already been enlarged on bail and in view of the alleged eyewitnesses, case of applicant is at par with them.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail but could dispute the fact that from the statements of the eye-witnesses it appears that there is allegation against the other accused persons also that they caused head injury to the deceased along with the applicant and doctor in his statement categorically stated that no external injury was found on the body of the deceased.

¶16

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶17

Although, this is the second bail application but at the time of deciding first bail application, the co-ordinate bench of this Court categorically stated that as specific role of causing head injury has been attributed to the applicant in the statements of the witnesses, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail but from the statements of the alleged eye-witnesses, it appears that they also made allegation against other accused persons and it cannot be reflected from their statements that applicant alone was liable for the head injury of the deceased and it appears that full and correct facts could not be placed before this Court at the time of deciding first bail application of the applicant.

¶18

Further, from the perusal of the statement of the doctor, which has been annexed in the instant second bail application, it appears that deceased did not sustain any visible injury and this fact also could not be placed before this Court at the time of deciding first bail application.

¶19

Further, all the other accused persons have already released on bail and in view of the statements of the alleged eye-witnesses, case of applicant is at par with them.

¶20

Therefore, from the discussion made above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶22

Let the applicant- Faheem Khan be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶23

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶24

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶25

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶26

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶27

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.

¶28

Order Date :- 10.5.2023

¶29

KK Patel

¶30

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

Faheem Khan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faheem 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manisha Vs State of U.P.

Anil Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahfooz Vs State of U.P.

Deepchand Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Matelu Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Durgesh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others