Allowed

Arman @ Surman v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC13 Mar 2024BAIL/2668/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application allowed regarding a murder charge under Section 302/34 IPC. The High Court granted bail as the applicant was not named in the FIR and the incriminating evidence consisted of a confessional statement and unrecovered weapon, lacking independent corroboration.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties under specified conditions.

Arman @ Surman vs State of U.P Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:21731

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2668 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Arman @ Surman Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Farooq Ayoob,Mansi Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

2. The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.1040 of 2023, under Section 302/34 IPC, P.S. Dewa, District Barabanki.

¶8

3. In terms of the FIR registered against unknown persons it was alleged that the younger brother of the informant had gone out of the home and subsequently, some unknown persons had killed him. The applicant was linked with the offence in question based upon a confessional statement, which is on record, wherein he has confessed the role of catching hold of the deceased and the role of attacking was assigned to one Afzal Quraishi. The recovery of the alleged weapon was at the instance and pointing out of the three co-accused. In the light of the said, it is argued that apart from the confessional statement and the recovery which is not in the presence of any independent witnesses, there is nothing to implicate the applicant with the offence in question and he has been falsely implicated. The applicant has no criminal history and is in custody since 07.12.2023.

¶9

4. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application by arguing that the applicant has confessed to the offence in question and was involved with the other co-accused.

¶10

5. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, prima-facie , the applicant was not named in the FIR; he has been linked only based upon a confessional statement which is a weak piece of evidence and the recovery which is not in the presence of any independent witness. In view of the said facts coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶11

6. Let the applicant Arman @ Surman be released on bail in aforesaid FIR number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of court

¶12

concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶14

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶15

(c) 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.

¶16

Order Date :- 13.3.2024

¶17

nishant

¶18

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

Arman @ Surman v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arman @ Surman v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. 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

Nitesh Tiwari Vs the State of U.P. Thru.Secy. Home Deptt.

Mohd. Arsh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Mahesh Pasi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Sectt. Lko

Amit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Sachin Shrivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Home, Deptt., Lucknow

Rajesh Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.