Allowed

Talib v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2023BAIL/59276/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for an accused charged with murder and criminal conspiracy. The applicant, not named in the initial FIR, was distinguished from the main fire-armer. Considering the co-accused's release and the applicant's lack of prior record, bail was granted subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing personal bonds and two sureties subject to conditions against tampering, criminal activity, and intimidating witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 59276 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Talib Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

The bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant - Talib to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 120 of 2022 under Sections 302, 34, 120B I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that he is not named in the FIR. Regarding incident dated 01.03.2022 the first information report against unknown persons was registered by the first informant, wherein it is mentioned that when he heard of the incident, he along with Danish and Iqrar Husain went on the spot and took his brother to the hospital where he was declared dead. Again, the second application was moved by the first informant in the police station on the same day with the version that his brother was murdered by causing fire arm injury. The third application was given by the first informant on the next day i.e. on 03.03.2022 in the police station concerned, wherein it was mentioned that when Danish and Abid were standing outside the furniture shop, at the same time the deceased was coming on the motorcycle, Parvez Saifi and two other unknown persons also came on the motorcycle chasing the deceased. Parvez Saifi shot at the deceased. As per postmortem report, six injuries are found on the person of the deceased and cause of death is shock and haemorrhage. Out of six injuries mentioned in the postmortem report, one injury is fire arm wound of entry. For the first time, in the statement of the sister of the deceased, it was disclosed that Parvez Saifi wanted to marry with Imra, the sister of the deceased, while she was marrying with some other person on 07.03.2022 as fixed by her parents. On 21.02.2022 the deceased caught her sister red handed talking with Parvez Saifi and he reprimanded, hit and shot at her in a fit of rage. That fire was missed. Getting this news and with the intention of taking revenge, Parvez Saifi shot dead Abrar, who is said to have fired on her sister. As per prosecution side also, the role of firing is not assigned to the

¶8

present applicant. It is submitted that co-accused person namely Ajay Yadav has already been enlarged by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.31579 of 2022. It is next submitted that applicant has no any previous criminal history to his credit except the present one. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.03.2022. Hence, prayer for bail is made.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail however he could not dispute the fact that co-accused person has already been enlarged on bail.

¶10

From perusal of the record, it is found that the name of the applicant came into light on 17.03.2022 after about 15 days of the incident. In the statement of Danish, who is said to be along with first informant from the very first day of the incident, even in his statement the motive and role assigned to make fire is with Parvez only. The role of present applicant is distinguishable from Parvez. He is not assigned the role of making fire. He had accompanied the person making fire on the deceased.

¶11

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at bar and taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of accusations, severity of punishment in case of conviction, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and coupled with the fact that co-accused has already been enlarged on bail but without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

The bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Talib involved in Case Crime No. 120 of 2022 under Sections 302, 34, 120B I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Etah be released on bail on furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶14

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶15

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶16

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will co-operate in the trial.

¶17

The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date

¶18

fixed by the trial court unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶19

In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶20

Order Date :- 2.1.2023 Sachin/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Talib v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Talib 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

Rajan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Sumit Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Saroj Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Imtiyaj Vs State of U.P.