Dismissed

Meraj Alias Kaliya v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2024BAIL/1843/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application under Sections 302, 342 IPC, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petitioner prayer. Despite the applicant's advanced age and lack of prior criminal record compared to other accused, the court held that the grave nature of the offence—murder involving seven injuries and strangulation—did not justify bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; applicant remains in custody.

Meraj Alias Kaliya vs State of U.P. Thru. the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45701

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1843 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Meraj Alias Kaliya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Hom Narayan Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashish Raman Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ashish Raman Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

2 . The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 315 of 2023, under Sections 302, 342 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Bahraich.

¶8

3 . In terms of the FIR, it was alleged that the brother of the informant was killed by all the accused. It was stated that on the date of incident, he saw all the four accused had tied the brother of the informant and were attacking him, the informant tried to intervene, however, he could not help and ultimately the brother of the informant was killed by all the four accused. A similar statement was given by the informant before the police authorities. From the post mortem report the cause of death was ascertained as ante mortem strangulation and as many as seven injuries were also observed on the body of the deceased. A ligature mark was also shown around the neck, however as the hyoid bone was found to be fractured, medical view was formed that the cause of death was strangulation and thereafter hanging.

¶9

4. It is argued by the counsel for the applicant that two of the co-accused Smt.Khalikun @ Maisroon and Saleem were enlarged on bail vide orders dated 27.02.2024 and

¶10

14.03.2024 mainly on the ground of the age of the said applicants and the fact one of the co-accused Smt. Khalikun was a lady. He further argues that no specific allegation was leveled against the applicant and as the two co-accused have been enlarged on bail, the applicant who has no criminal history and is in custody since 12.09.2023 may be enlarged on bail.

¶11

5. The counsel for the informant strongly opposed the bail prayer by arguing that the argument of parity is not applicable as the said two persons who were enlarged on bail were on the ground of being a lady and the other being aged about 65 years, as such, bail application may be rejected considering the gravity of the offence.

¶12

6 . The learned A.G.A. also opposed the bail application by arguing that a serious offence has been committed, as such, the bail applicant may be rejected.

¶13

7. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, from perusal of the post mortem report, it is clear that as many as seven injuries were found on the body of the deceased. The allegation in the FIR and the statement alleged that the brother of the informant (deceased) was tied and was being beaten up and ultimately died on account of strangulation. Although no specific allegation has been leveled against any of the accused, however, considering the fact that the applicant is aged about 30 years and causing the death on account of strangulation and thereafter hanging of the body makes the offence extremely grievous. Considering these facts, no case for bail is made out. The bail application is, accordingly, rejected.

¶14

Order Date :- 4.7.2024 Arun

¶15

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

Meraj Alias Kaliya v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meraj Alias Kaliya v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Neta Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Deshraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vijay Agarwal @ Golu @ Vijay Kaliya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Sagar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Shiv Pujan Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin.Secy. Home Lko.

Waseem Ahmad @ Aman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.