Allowed

Heena Khan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2023BAIL/57866/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J. considered the third bail application of Heena Khan in a murder case. After reviewing submissions regarding lack of motive and apprehension of custodial rights, the court allowed bail with conditions including strict adherence to trial dates and an undertaking against obtaining adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Warranted release of Heena Khan on personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to specific conditions regarding trial attendance and surety verification.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:156920

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57866 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Heena Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Pankaj Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This is third bail application. The Crl. Misc. First Bail Application No. 38184 of 2014 has been rejected on 17.11.2016 and Criminal Misc. IInd Bail application No. 20997 of 2017 has been rejected on 08.05.2019 respectively by another bench of this court.

¶8

This is third bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Heena Khan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 549 of 2014, under Sections 302 I.P.C. registered at P.S.- Sector-58, District- Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against her and there is no motive to commit the murder of the deceased against the applicant. During investigation the mobile phone of the applicant as well as wife of the deceased has not been collected by the Investigating Officer. The accused applicant has not been seen by any one at the place of incident. There is only the evidence two witnesses namely Satvir an Pappu who had stated that they had seen the deceased quarreling with the applicant at the flat of the applicant at about 5.00 P.M. while the occurrence had taken place at around 9.00 P.M. on that day. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that trial is progressing at a slow pace and has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Indrani Pratim Mukerjea Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1627 of 2022 to submit that prolonged incarceration of a person as an under trial is against his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that there is

¶10

no occasion now for the applicant to tamper with any witness or to flee from judicial process. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that she is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make heself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon her. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a lady languishing in jail since 21.04.2014 having no criminal history.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but admitted the facts that the applicant is in jail since last eight and half years.

¶12

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Heena Khan, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶17

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during

¶18

trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶19

(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A IPC.

¶20

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶21

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶22

The bail application is allowed .

¶23

Order Date :- 4.8.2023 RPD

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heena Khan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Heena 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukhveer Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tushar Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Amarjeet Nishad Alias Mitthu Vs State of U.P.

Amardeep Vs State of U.P.

Abhay Kumar @ Abhay Pandit Vs State of U.P.

Hari Lal Vs State of U.P.