Javed Mirja Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1582 of 2024

Javed Mirja

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Devendra Pratap, Jaskaran Lal Maurya, Ram Kumar Singh, Saad Husain, Shashank Shekhar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

¶7

Court No. - 12

¶8

HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

¶9

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

¶10

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 12.7.2023 at about 05.00 pm, the informant's brother Javed Mirja (applicant) got the property which was in the name of the informant's mother Waheeda Beguam, bequeathed in his name. When the informant and his wife resisted, the accused became adamant to fight and while hurling abuses shot his wife, due to that his wife died on the spot.

¶11

As per the post-mortem report, the cause of death is shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem firearm injuries. The deceased suffered three ante-mortem injuries, out of which the injury No. 1 is a firearm wound of entry.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. Except the complainant, there is no other eye-witness in this case. He submits that the complainant while being examined before the trial court as PW-1 has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. All the fact witnesses have been examined before the trial court. Thus, there is no chance of tampering the prosecution evidence.

¶13

BAIL No. 1582 of 2024

¶14

2

¶15

It is further submitted that the applicant has explained the criminal history of 3 cases in para no. 3 of the supplementary rejoinder affidavit. He is languishing in jail since 3.8.2023. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶17

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record, the post-mortem report so also the fact that except the complainant, there is no eye-witness in this case; the complainant while being examined before the trial court as PW-1 has been declared hostile; all the fact witnesses have been examined before the trial court; there appears to be no chance of tampering the prosecution evidence coupled with the fact that the applicant has duly explained the criminal history; he is languishing in jail since 3.8.2023; till date, out of 24, only five prosecution witnesses have been examined; the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future as well as in view of the judgement of the Apex Court in re: Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant- Javed Mirja involved in Case Crime No. 287 of 2023, under Sections 302, 504 IPC & Section 25(1-B), 27(1) of Arms Act, Police Station- Misrikh, District- Sitapur, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶20

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶21

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,

¶23

BAIL No. 1582 of 2024

¶24

3

¶25

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.

¶26

(iv) 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.

¶27

(v) 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 in accordance with law.

¶28

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 B.N.S.S. 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 209 of B.N.S.

¶29

(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)

¶30

September 18, 2025 Shravan

¶31

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

Javed Mirja v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Javed Mirja v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

Mohd. Zeeshan Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prn. Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others

Udayraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept. Lko.

Ram Prasad @ Kaji Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Sachin Kumar @ Akash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sumit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and 4 Others