Allowed

Syed Masood Muzaffar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl/Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2024BAIL/8754/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application moved by Syed Masood Muzaffar in a medical negligence case involving culpable homicide. The court observed lack of clear evidence implicating the applicant and absence of flight risk, granting bail subject to sureties and strict conditions regarding court appearances and evidence tampering.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each and complying with specified conditions regarding court appearances and evidence.

Syed Masood Muzaffar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:59330

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8754 of 2024 Applicant :- Syed Masood Muzaffar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl/Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Singh Chauhan,Shameem Jahan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Avinash Pandey,Rahul Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

Shri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant has sent an illness slip, which is opposed by learned counsel for the applicant. He has also drawn the attention of the Court towards the order dated 29.08.2024, which reads as under:-

¶8

"Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

At the outset, it may be noticed that Sri Avinash Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant has sent an illness slip.

¶10

Sri Anurag Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the matter is being adjourned at the behest of the learned counsel for the complainant with a design to delay the disposal of the application and he opposed the said application.

¶11

In view thereof, list/put up this matter tomorrow, i.e. 30th August, 2024. In case if the learned counsel for the complainant does not appear or he has any difficulty, it shall be open for him to make alternate arrangements. "

¶12

Today again in light of the illness slip, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the adjournment is opposed.

¶13

In view of the order passed by this Court dated 29.08.2024, it will be seen that merely an illness slip has been sent and moreover, the record indicates that Shri Rahul Kumar, Advocate has also filed his Vakalatnama, even he is not present to inform the Court of any plausible reason regarding repeated illness slip on behalf of counsel for the complainant.

¶14

In this view of the matter, the Courts has proceeded to hear the bail application.

¶15

The instant application has been moved seeking bail in respect of Case No.5655 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.17 of 2024, under Sections 304, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Pratapgarh during trial.

¶16

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the present applicant has no connection with the entire episode, which resulted in the death of the victim on account of alleged medical negligence. It is next submitted that neither the applicant has performed the said surgery nor he was present. The applicant is not medically qualified to get the said surgery done apart from the fact that he is an Ayurvedic doctor and is affiliated with Life Care Hospital. The alleged death on account of medical negligence is said to have occurred in a different nursing home, namely, Anam Hospital. The said hospital is managed, run and controlled by some other persons who have been named in the FIR. However, the applicant has no role to play.

¶17

It is further urged that the name of the applicant has surfaced at the behest of one Mohd. Shamim, who was pharmacist in Anam hospital. Since, he was affiliated to the management of the said hospital, in order to deflect the investigation, he has taken the name of the present applicant. It is also pointed out that neither any of the family members of the deceased including Usha Devi and Brij Lal Chaurasiya who were said to be present at the Hospital Anam but they have not given any statement by which the applicant would be incriminated. It is urged that the applicant has no criminal history except as disclosed in paragraph 22 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, wherein the final report had been submitted.

¶18

It is also submitted that Mohd. Shamim on whose statement, the name of the applicant has been introduced, has already been granted bail by this Court by means of the order dated 24.04.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4476 of 2024.

¶19

It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 08.07.2024. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the evidence. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and in the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant is also entitled to bail.

¶20

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application, however he could not dispute the fact that the charge sheet has been filed in this case and even in the statement of the witnesses, which the prosecution proposes to examine, there is no clear evidence to implicate the present applicant.

¶21

Considering the rival submissions as well as the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record also considering the nature of allegations and accusation against

¶22

the applicant, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶23

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶24

Let the applicant- Syed Masood Muzaffar 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:-

¶25

(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.

¶26

(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.

¶27

(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.

¶28

(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.

¶29

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

¶30

liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶31

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

¶32

Order Date :- 30.8.2024 Ashutosh

¶33

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

Syed Masood Muzaffar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl/Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Masood Muzaffar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl/Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jagdish Prasad and 2 Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Officer and 4 Others

Vinay Singh Vs the Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru. Member and Others

Vijay Bahadur Srivastava Vs Addl. Commissioner Lko and 14 Others

Matloob Hussain Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Manoj Rao and Another vs Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow Thru. Its Secretary and Others

Wahid Ali and Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich and 3 Others