Allowed

Mohd. Waseem @ Chotu @ Mafiya v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2024/2223/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the bail rejection order. Relying on the absence of recovered blood-stained articles and sole reliance on a confessional statement, the court found the trial court failed to consider these aspects, releasing the appellant on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejected. Appellant Mohd. Waseem released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding evidence tampering, criminal activity, witness intimi

Mohd. Waseem @ Chotu @ Mafiya Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:58721

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2223 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Mohd. Waseem @ Chotu @ Mafiya Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 2 Others

¶5

Counsel for Appellant :- Vaibhav Sharma,Anand Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 25.04.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 3393 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 142 of 2022 under Sections 302, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- P.G.I., District- Lucknow.

¶9

It is evident from the record that F.I.R. of case in question was lodged by Village Chaukidar, namely, Shri Chandan, who has been arrayed as respondent no. 2 and notices have already been served upon respondent nos. 2 and 3 on 01.08.2023, but neither the unserved notice nor acknowledgement has been received back. Therefore, the matter is being proceeded for final disposal.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that appellant, deceased as well as other coaccused persons are daily-wage workers and they were consuming liqour and having some food at the same time, deceased started throwing the food articles, as a result, accused persons started beating him, as deceased and accused persons were in intoxicated condition, therefore, deceased died. He further submitted that no blood stained article was recovered by the Investigating OfÏcer and merely on the basis of confessional statement, charge

¶11

sheet was submitted by the Investigating OfÏcer. He further submits that appellant does not have any criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 17.03.2022. It is also submitted that the co-accused, Hemraj Yadav has already been granted bail vide order dated 03.01.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2544 of 2022. It is lastly submitted that learned trial court failed to consider the prosecution story as well as defense of appellant, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of appellant and submits that after detailed investigation, charge sheet has been submitted but he does not dispute this fact that on the basis of confessional statement, involvement of appellant was found in the present case. He also does not dispute that co-accused, Hemraj Yadav has already been granted bail.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., ground of parity with the coaccused and going through the contents of appeal as well as other relevant documents; it is evident that merely on the basis of confessional statement, charge sheet has been filed and no blood stained article was recovered by Investigating OfÏcer. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that learned trial court failed to consider the aforesaid aspects, hence, the aforesaid impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the present appeal has substance, and it is accordingly allowed, and the impugned order dated 25.04.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow is hereby set aside.

¶15

Let the appellant- Mohd. Waseem @ Chotu @ Mafiya involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail,

¶16

on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶17

a. The appellant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶18

b. The appellant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶19

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

¶20

d. The appellant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless their personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶21

Order Date :- 28.8.2024 VKS

¶22

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Waseem @ Chotu @ Mafiya v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Waseem @ Chotu @ Mafiya v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

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

Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi (Assistant Professor) vs Dr. Devesh Chaturvedi, Addl. Chief Secy. Agriculture Education and Research, Lko. and Others

Smt. Shanti vs Indrajeet Singh, Nagar Ayukt (Municipal Commissioner), Nagar Nigam Lko. and Another

Indra Bhushan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Deptt. Lko. and Others

Suresh Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ashok Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Putti Lal and Another vs Dr. Mahendra Dev, Director of Edcation (Basic) U.P., Lko.