Allowed

Mujeeb Siddiqi @ Mohd. Mujeeb v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Allahabad HC29 May 2024/4692/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, allowed the bail application of the applicant in a criminal case involving grievous hurt and common assault. The court noted the lack of flight risk and a slight doubt in the medical report, granting bail with a personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties and undertaking to comply with specific conditions regarding court attendance and evidence tampering.

Mujeeb Siddiqi @ Mohd. Mujeeb Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40788

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4692 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mujeeb Siddiqi @ Mohd. Mujeeb Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Tiwari,Satyendra Singh

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Singh

¶7

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶8

Counter affidavit filed by the learned AGA is taken on record.

¶9

Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is also taken on record.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State respondent as well as Sri Mukesh Sharma learned counsel for the complainant.

¶11

The instant application has been filed seeking bail in Case Crime No.07 of 2024 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 386, 506 IPC & Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, relating to police station Gudamba, District Lucknow.

¶12

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the alleged incident is said to have occurred on 09.01.2024 at around 09:30 PM. It is alleged that the co-accused namely Daud had made a demand for ransom from the complainant which was ignored by him and thereafter Daud had threatened the complainant. It is in the aforesaid context that on 09.01.2024 while the complainant had ventured out of his house and had gone a few paces ahead, it is alleged that the co-accused Daud had shot at the complainant. At that time another co-accused Salman, he also fired but it missed. It is also stated that hearing the sound of the gun shots, the brother of the complainant namely Imran also came at the site and it is alleged that the applicant Kaleem along with another co-accused Farhan, armed with iron rod and the present applicant with lathi had assaulted the brother of the complainant which led to severe injuries and left him in a bloodied state. It is ,thereafter, that the neighbours had gathered and the accused fled from the site.

¶13

It is also urged that the allegations primarily of making of

¶14

demand from the complainant is assigned to Sri Daud, the role of firing is also assigned to Daud and Salman, however, in so far as the present applicant is concerned, the role assigned to him is assaulting the brother of the complainant with lathi. He further submits that in so far as the medical is concerned which indicates that it resulted in compound fracture of humerus and fracture dista at end Redius and Ulna.

¶15

It is also submitted that as per the report, the brother of the complainant was admitted for treatment on 11.01.2024 i.e. after two days whereas as per the incident, had the brother of the complainant sustained injuries and he was left profusely bleeding then he ought to have been admitted and taken for medical treatment on the very same day and not after two days which creates a doubt over the incident itself. It is also alleged that the charge sheet has been filed and there is no chance for the applicant to either influence any witness or tamper with the evidence, coupled with the fact that even during investigation nothing incriminating was found in so far as the gun shots are concerned.

¶16

It is further urged that the applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 24.01.2024, there is no gainful purpose for the applicant to abscond and in such circumstances, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶17

The co-accused Mohd. Kaleem and Mohd. Farhan have been granted bail vide orders dated 26.04.2024 and 08.04.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application nos.4607 of 2024 and 760 of 2024.

¶18

The learned A.G.A. on the basis of case diary available with him as well as counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application and submits that the medical evidence does reflect the assault and as such the applicant is prima facie involved in the offence.

¶19

Having considered the fact and also noticing the fact that the applicant had throughout cooperated in the investigation, apart from the fact that there is slight doubt regarding the involvement of the applicant to the role which was ascribed in the FIR, viz.a viz. the medical report and as such the issue in question is yet to be tested in trial.

¶20

Having considered the statements of the applicant under Section 161 Cr.P.C., as well as considering the facts and circumstances including the nature and gravity of the accusation and no apprehension has been expressed that the applicant is at flight risk, hence, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant can be

¶21

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

¶22

Let the applicant- Mujeeb Siddiqi @ Mohd. Mujeeb involved in the above-mentioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. At the time of executing required sureties, the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶23

(i) 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.

¶24

(ii) 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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

(iv) 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.

¶27

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶28

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶29

Order Date :- 29.5.2024 Harshita

¶30

Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mujeeb Siddiqi @ Mohd. Mujeeb v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mujeeb Siddiqi @ Mohd. Mujeeb v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

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

National Insurance Comp. Ltd. Lko.through Its Administrative Vs Smt. Kusum Pandey and 4 Ors.

Ved Prakash @ Kunja Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Rehan @ Maanu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Jayraji vs Additional Commissioner (Administration), , Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Others

Pankaj Mishra vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Mukesh Kumar Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.