Allowed

Rahmat Khan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Aug 2023BAIL/59319/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the second bail application of Rahmat Khan, accused of murder. The court granted bail after noting the applicant's prolonged incarceration and the examination of key witnesses, while imposing strict conditions and directing the trial court to conclude the case expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Applicant enlargable on bail with personal bond and two heavy sureties under specified conditions.

Rahmat Khan Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:165811

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 59319 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Rahmat Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Mohan Pandey,Ram Raj Mishra,Sudarshan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Krishna Gopal

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

This is second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.22069 of 2021 has been rejected by Hon'ble Om Prakash, VII, vide order dated 28.09.2021.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Krishna Gopal, learned counsel for the informant, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present. He further submits that the material witnesses i.e. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 have been examined before the learned Court below and though they have not been declared hostile but have not supported the prosecution story. Copy of which is annexed as Annexure-SA4 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that alleged offence is said to have been committed in the year 2019 and that the applicant is in jail since last more than four and a half years, thus 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 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

¶9

mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.11.2019 having no criminal history.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail but admitted the facts that the applicant is in jail since last four and half years.

¶11

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. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant- Rahmat Khan , be released on bail in Case Crime No. 769 of 2019 under Section 302 I.P.C. Police Station Fareedpur, District Bareilly, 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:-

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶16

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

¶17

under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶18

(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 him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

However, considering the period of incarceration of applicant and the fact that the material witnesses have already have examined, the learned trial Court is directed to make all possible endeavours to decide the aforesaid case as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.

¶22

Order Date :- 17.8.2023 S.Ali

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rahmat Khan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahmat 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

Machal Singh Alias Sandeep Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mufeeda Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kalu Khan @ Shariq Vs State of U.P.