Mohd. Irshad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 29.11.2023, the informant's brother Ain Ali went in the wedding ceremony at the house of Ram Bahadur Prajapati and Suman Lata Saini. He did not return till late night. He was searched frantically but in vain. It is alleged that on 30.11.2023 at about 06.00 am, one Ruhi residing around 100 meters away from the house of the informant told him that his brother is lying near her house. Upon this information, the informant went there and found his brother in an unconscious state. The informant took his brother to the District Hospital where he was declared dead.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. As per the post-mortem report, the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem throttling. He submits that the name of the applicant has surfaced in the statement of co-accused Ruhi, though the charge-sheet was not filed against her. Except this, there is neither any recovery nor any material with the prosecution. It is submitted that the complainant while being examined before the trial court has not supported the prosecution case. Moreover, the fact witnesses have been examined before the trial court. Thus, there appears to be no chance of tampering the prosecution evidence.

¶13

BAIL No. 4092 of 2024

¶14

2

¶15

It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 16.12.2023. 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 the case is of circumstantial evidence; the chain of circumstance does not appear to be complete; the complainant while being examined before the trial court has not supported the prosecution case; 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 no criminal history; he is languishing in jail since 16.12.2023 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- Mohd. Irshad involved in Case Crime No. 603 of 2023, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station- Bhadokhar, DistrictRaebareli, 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, 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.

¶23

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not

¶24

BAIL No. 4092 of 2024

¶25

3

¶26

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

Mohd. Irshad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Irshad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

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