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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36380

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12 of 2025

Applicant :- Altaf Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Lalji Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Lalji Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 136 of 2024, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504, 506, 302 IPC, Police Station Raniganj, District Pratapgarh.

¶9

Prosecution story in nutshell is that the aunt (Bua) of the informant, namely, Naseen Bano was forcibly residing near his house and several times, she was asked to go her house but she did not leave the same and ultimately, on 18th of April, 2024 at about 5:00 p.m., Naseen Bano, Naseem, Khurseed, Javed, Mahtab, Altaf, Airaf came to the house of the deceased and started abusing and when the same was objected by the father of the informant, the accused persons, including the present applicant started assaulting him and on alarm being raised, the eye witnesses, namely, Hameeda, Shifa, Farheen and Akbarunnisha came for rescue but in between, the accused persons pushed down the deceased/father of the informant, namely, Nazame Hasan and he was taken to hospital where he died on 19th of April, 2024.

¶10

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that six persons are named in the FIR, including the applicant and no specific allegation is made against him. He added that the FIR is delayed by two days but no plausible explanation is given regarding the same. He also submits that, even if the allegation made in the FIR is assumed as correct, no such intent is borne out that the

¶11

same is resulted into a murder of a person. He also added that no fatal weapons are used in the alleged offence and, prima facie, the injuries are also apparent that the same have been inflicted because of the fact that he was fell down himself. He also submits that incident occurred on spur of moment and there is no intent to commit murder. He next submits that the applicant has a case criminal history which has been explained in Para 21 of the rejoinder affidavit and he is languishing in jail since 26.07.2024. He also submits that the chargesheet has been filed in the matter, as such there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses. Concluding his argument, learned counsel submits that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is involved in committing the offence and he is named in the First Information Report. He further submits that there are eye witnesses of the incident, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for any relief. Learned Counsel for the State has also opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the applicant is named in the FIR and there are serious allegation against him, as such he is not entitled for bail.

¶13

Having considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the FIR is delayed by two days and no plausible explanation is given therefor; further no weapons are used in the alleged incident; the complainant is not the eye witness, as he was in Bombay at the time if said incident; the learned counsel for the applicant has also argued that both the eye witnesses are not independent eye witnesses, as they are wife and daughters of the deceased; further there is a case criminal history of the applicant which has been explained and the applicant is languishing in jail since 26.07.2024; chargesheet has been filed in the matter, coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶14

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence,

¶15

prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶16

Let the applicant- Altaf involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶17

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶18

(2) 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. He 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;

¶19

(3) 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.; and

¶20

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶22

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶23

Order Date :- 25.6.2025 kkv/

¶24

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

Altaf v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Altaf v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohammad Rizwan Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Arti @ Munni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Hom Deptt. Lko .

Banwari Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Anoop Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Karan Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Rajiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. Lko.