Held applicant entitled to bail on ground of parity despite offence under IPC 302 and pendency of trial, subject to standard conditions regarding appearance and surrender if proclamation issued.
Released on personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding court appearance and prosecution proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9188 of 2023
Applicant :- Saifi Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Uma Kant Gupta,Punit Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This is second bail application, as the first bail of the applicant bearing Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9536 of 2021 was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 29.03.2023.
3. The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 817 of 2019 under Section 302/34 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Raebareli.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no direct evidence indicated in the FIR that the applicant had committed offence. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the applicant has been falsely implicated and on his confessional statement, the recovery of knife has been shown from his possession.Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that four fact witnesses have been examined before the trial court and no-one has stated that he or she had seen the incident. Learned counsel for the applicant
has also submitted that other witnesses, namely Mohd. Ilias @ Manni and Mohsin Rana, who are said to eyewitnesses of the case, have also stated under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that accused had made confessional statement that he had committed the crime. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that the confessional statement recorded by the police has no evidentiary value. Lastly, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail for about 4 years and 10 months i.e. since 12.10.2019 and almost fact witnesses have been examined before the trial court, therefore, there is no question of tempering the evidence and threatening the witnesses.
5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that in the confessional statement, it is admitted by the applicant that he had committed the crime . He has submitted that the trial is going on, therefore, bail at this stage may not be considered.
6. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and after hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking into overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the argument that it is a case of circumstantial evidence; the argument that the applicant is in jail about more than 4 years and 10 months i.e. since 12.10.2019 and the argument that the confessional statement recorded by the police has no evidentiary value, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.
7. The bail application of the applicant is allowed .
8. Let applicant, namely, Saifi Khan , be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-
(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.
(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.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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.
It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The Trial Court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything in this order.
(Brij Raj Singh, J.)
Order Date :- 30.8.2024 dk/
Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity despite the nature of the offence and pendency of trial.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Saifi Khan
Brij Raj Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
