Allowed

Saddam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lucknow

Allahabad HC9 May 2024/3760/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to applicant Saddam in a murder case involving honor killing. Bail granted on grounds of parity with a co-accused, lack of incriminating evidence against applicant, and absence of criminal antecedents. Applicant released on personal bond and sureties subject to court-imposed conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount subject to specific conditions regarding appearance and conduct.

Saddam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lucknow — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36008

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3760 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Saddam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lucknow

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Dhananjai Kumar Tripathi,Devendra Verma,Kajol,Nitin Verma,Tanupriya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Raman Mishra

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that initially a missing report was given by the informant on 28.7.2022. Later on F.I.R. has been lodged alleging that on 27.7.2022 at 8 p.m., the accused persons came to his house and take away his son Arif (deceased) on a motorcycle who did not return till date. When he inquired from the accused persons after going their home, they, to evade the query, have not told anything to him. Later on, they have confessed regarding the murder of the deceased.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that cause of death is asphyxia as a result of antemortem strangulation. Except the last seen evidence, there is no other evidence against the present applicant. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant except a mobile which belongs to the applicant. It is a case of honor killing.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that coaccused Mehandi Hasan who was assigned similar role has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 03.01.2024 passed in criminal misc. bail application No. 1823 of 2023.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity with the order of the co-accused.

¶12

It has been further submitted that in the confessional statement of Islam, role of strangulation is on Islam and not on the present applicant.

¶13

It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 31.07.2022 without having any criminal antecedent. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application, however, could not dispute the fact it is a case of parity.

¶15

On due consideration to the fact that co-accused Mehandi Hasan who was assigned similar role has been enlarged on bail; the case is of circumstantial evidence; nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 31.07.2022 without having any criminal antecedent and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail on the ground of parity.

¶16

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant, Saddam, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 419/2022, under Sections 302/201 IPC, Police Station - Motipur, District - Bahraich, be released on bail 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶18

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶22

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

(vi) 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. is issued and the 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, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

Order Date :- 9.5.2024

¶25

R.C.

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Saddam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saddam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Lucknow

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pavnesh Kumar Yadav @ Chintu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashutosh Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Lal Bahadur @ Lal Bahadur Agrahari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. Lko. and Another

Sujeet Kumar Singh @ Manish vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and Another

Deep Narain Sahu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Hasan Raja Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.