Nisar Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:46159

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2135 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Nisar Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Verma,Harish Kumar,Suraj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 855/2024, under Sections 3 (5), 103 (1), 351 (3) of B.N.S., 2023 Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged at 18.04 hours on 06.11.2024 against five persons, including the applicant, stating that the informant's grandson had married Saira, daughter of co-accused-Nisar out of mutual love due to which the accused persons kept animosity against the informant. Police had challaned both the parties under Section 107, 116, 151 CrPC after their marriage. Due to aforesaid animosity, all the accused persons caught hold of informant's son-Mubeen when he had gone to attend the call of nature at about 5:00 A.M. on 06.11.2024, they gaged his mouth with a cloth and strangulated him with a silk string and killed him and thereafter hanged him from a tree. The informant stated that he, Nasrat Ali and Kallu had seen the accused persons hanging the dead body of Mubeen from the tree.

¶9

Prior to lodging of FIR, Mohammad Ameen-father of the deceased and son of the informant had given a written

¶10

complaint at the police station informing that the dead body of his son was found hanging from a tree at 5:00 A.M. This information was entered in the general diary of the police station at 09:59 hours on 06.11.2024. The police conducted inquest which was witnessed by Kallu (mentioned in the FIR to be an eye witness of hanging). None of the witness mentioned that anyone had seen the accused persons hanging the deceased. 5. The post mortem examination report mentions a ligature mark around the neck besides an abraded contusion 5cmx3cm over back of right ankle.

¶11

In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history. Co-accused Yunus has been granted bail by a separate order passed today.

¶12

Co-accused persons, namely, Yunus, Shoeb and Qadir Khan have already been granted bail by this Court by means of orders dated 19.03.2025 & 24.03.2024, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.1602 of 2025, 1628 of 2025 and 2446 of 2025 respectively.

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that in the initial complaint given to the police, the father of the deceased did not make a mention of his son having been killed and hanged; that in the inquest proceedings conducted about 5 hours after the incident also, no such thing was told by the alleged eye witness of the incident, who has witnessed the inquest proceedings and that the allegation of hanging has been levelled for the first time in the FIR lodged after a delay of more than 12 hours and that the applicant has no criminal history, he is languishing in jail since 18.12.2024 and the charge sheet has been submitted on 15.01.2025 and the two co-accused persons have already been

¶14

granted bail by this Court, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant- Nisar Khan be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court.

¶17

Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nisar Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nisar Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.

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

Shiva Vs State of U.P.Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

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

Nanbabu @ Ram Ubare Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home U.P. Lko.

Abhishek Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Nisar Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.

Mohd. Shadan @ Nadan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow