Allowed

Sharif v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2023BAIL/58634/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application concerned an assault case involving injury and death under the IPC. The court held that there is no evidence linking the applicant to the fatal head injury of the deceased and noted that the applicant himself sustained injuries and lodged an FIR. Considering these facts, the court allowed the bail application.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions to appear in court, not to tamper with evidence, and not to engage in criminal activities.

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

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 58634 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sharif Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Faiz Hasnain,Mohd. Hasham,Syed Riyaz Askari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashok Malaviya,Farid Ahmad

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Mrs. Sweta Pandey learned Advocate filed today her power on behalf of the applicant, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Mrs. Sweta Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Farid Ahmad, learned counsel for the informant and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 479 of 2022, under Sections 304, 308, 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Najibabad, District- Bijnor, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

FIR of the present case was lodged under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC against the applicant and three others and according to the FIR, applicant and his associates on 26.9.2022 at about 10:00 a.m. in the morning made assault through rod and woodensticks and due to assault made by them four persons sustained injuries.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that initially FIR of the present case was lodged under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC but after the death of one injured Gulab Navi case was converted under Section 304 IPC. She further submitted that applicant on the basis of false allegation has been made accused in the present matter along with three others and only general role has been assigned to the applicant and other accused persons and even no specific weapon has been assigned to either of the accused persons.

¶10

She further submitted that from the perusal of the post-mortem report of the deceased, it appears that he died due to head injury but there is no material available on record on the basis of which it

¶11

can be said said that applicant is the author of the head injury of the deceased. She further submitted that actually informant side was the real aggressor and they made assault and due to assault made by them, applicant himself sustained injury on his head and he also moved an application against the informant and injured on the same day to the police but when his FIR could not be lodged then subsequently an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved and FIR from the side of applicant was also lodged on 11.11.2022. She further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since 1.11.2022.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant along with three others made assault through rod and woodensticks and due to assault made by them four persons sustained injuries and subsequently one injured died but could not dispute the fact that in the alleged incident applicant also sustained injury and from the side of applicant also an FIR was lodged and postmortem report of the deceased shows that he died due to head injury and there is no evidence on record on the basis of which it could be even inferred that applicant is the author of this injury.

¶13

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶14

Although, there is allegation against the applicant and his associates that they assaulted to the family members of the informant due to which four persons sustained injury and subsequently one injured died but it appears that on the basis of general allegation, applicant has been made accused in the present matter along with three others and post-moretem report of the deceased shows that he died due to head injury and there is no evidence on record which can show that applicant is the author of this injury.

¶15

Further in the incident, applicant also sustained injury and from the side of applicant also an FIR was lodged although, on the basis of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. subsequent to the FIR of the present case, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

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

¶17

Let the applicant- Sharif 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:-

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 25.4.2023

¶23

KK Patel

¶24

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

Sharif v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharif 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

Ahasan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Parsan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Pushpendra @ Kallu Vs State of U.P.

Rajrani Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Yadav Vs State of U.P.