Shaukeen vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:44888

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2674 of 2025

Applicant :- Shaukeen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Vardhan Singh,Nikil Pathak,Sunil Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 31 of 2024, under Sections 302 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Khurja Nager, District- Bulandsahar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however, as per allegation made in the FIR, applicant has taken the deceased along with him and thereafter committed his murder but admittedly informant of the case is not the eye-witness.

¶9

He further submitted that however, as per alleged witnesses, when they witnessed the applicant then he was coming out from the sugarcane field and they found that dead body of the deceased was lying in the sugarcane field and thereafter they apprehended the applicant and handed over to the police but entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false. He further submitted that admittedly, none of the witness witnessed the real incident.

¶10

He further submitted that applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 16.01.2024 i.e. for last more than a year.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant was apprehended by the independent witnesses from the spot while he was trying to escape after committing the murder of the deceased, therefore, he does not deserve bail.

¶12

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶13

However, from the record, it appears, no one could see the real incident of alleged murder but it reflects, some witnesses witnessed the applicant when he was coming out from the sugarcane field and they also found dead body of the deceased in the field and thereafter they apprehended the applicant, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant is innocent.

¶14

Further, however, applicant is in jail in the present matter since 16.01.2024 i.e. for last more than a year but considering the nature of allegation levelled against the applicant and evidence available against him, in my view, it is not proper to release him on bail merely on the ground of his long incarceration of more than a year.

¶15

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is rejected at this stage.

¶16

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶17

Order Date :- 1.4.2025 KK Patel

¶18

Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shaukeen v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaukeen v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subedar Patel Alias Dhoni vs State of U.P.

Manish vs State of U.P.

Akhlaque Ahmad and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Pappu @ Serwari vs State of U.P.

Roshan vs State of U.P.

Bhagwan Patel vs State of U.P. and 3 Others