Allowed

Sonu Hussain Alias Bakridi v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC8 Jan 2024/679/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail in a murder case citing impression that it is a case of circumstantial evidence with incomplete chain, despite prosecution allegations of mercy killing argument over liquor.

What did the court decide?

Allowed bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each with conditions regarding tampering, intimidation, and presence in court.

Sonu Hussain Alias Bakridi Vs State of U.P… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:1606

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 679 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sonu Hussain Alias Bakridi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Verma,Ranjeet Kumar

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd Asad Rizvi,Rakesh Kumar Tripathi

¶7

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶8

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

¶9

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 167 of 2022 under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Chowk, District Lucknow.

¶10

As per the prosecution case, the complainant Sri Akbar Mirza has alleged that on 17/18.06.2022 in between 12:00 to 12:30 AM, one Gulle, a friend of the youngest son of the complainant came and told that Shahid Mirza @ Sonu is lying near Phool Mandi. The complainant rushed to the spot where he got to know that three-four persons had mercilessly killed his son. On inquiry, the local resident apprised the complainant that the persons involved in the incident were neighbour Bakridi and one Chandu resident of Sitapur who is

¶11

a rickshaw puller and the accused persons had escaped from the spot. It has been stated that there were family terms between the family of the complainant and the applicant and the reason as stated in the FIR was that on 17.06.2022, the accused Bakridi and another insisted the complainant to have a liquor which he had left since a long time and when the said fact came in the knowledge of the son of the complainant Shahid Mirza, he got into an argument with the accused Bakridi, and thus the accused Bakridi alongwith others committed the said crime, and hence the complainant while lodging the FIR has prayed to take strong action against the applicant Bakridi, Chandu and one unknown person.

¶12

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the incident occurred in the midnight of 17/18.6.2022. First Information Report has been lodged on 18.6.2022 at 16:25hrs. The complainant in this case is not the eye witness. According to F.I.R. Gulle is the eye witness.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant has invited attention of this Court towards statement of Gulle and has submitted that as per his own statement he has not witnessed the incident. He has come after the incident which was already happened. Moreover statement of Gulle under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded after delay of eight days. Further it has been submitted that as the eye witness Salman in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that he has seen one person

¶14

assaulting the other by big stone.

¶15

Learned Counsel for the applicant further invited attention of this Court towards antemortem injuries in which apart from lacerated wound an abraded contusion and five incised wounds have been found. He submits that these incised wounds falsify the statement of the Salman under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which otherwise has been recorded after delay of 70 days. He submits that the medical does not corroborate the oral testimony. The applicant has been falsely implicated. He has no criminal antecedents. He submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. Chain of circumstances are not complete.

¶16

Learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute that the statement has been recorded after delay. He further submits that recovery of knife from the pointing out of the accused has been shown.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no independent witness of the recovery.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer however could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶19

On due consideration to the antemortem injuries so also the statements of the Salman and Gulle, and also considering the facts that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, prima facie it appears to be a case of circumstantial evidence, the period of incarceration gone into by the

¶20

applicant in jail, the applicant is in jail since 19.6.2022, and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Sonu Hussain Alias Bakridi be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(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 ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶25

(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.

¶26

(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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶27

(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.

¶28

Order Date :- 8.1.2024

¶29

Madhu

¶30

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

Sonu Hussain Alias Bakridi v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Hussain Alias Bakridi v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Arun Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Mohd. Sohel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko.

Ramveer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. U.P. Lko.

Aamir Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Mohd. Waseem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Manish Kumar Yadav Alias Kolayi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.