Allowed

Mohammad Kaleel @ Kaleel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Allahabad HC7 Jan 2025BAIL/67/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by an accused under Sections 108 and 85 BNS in a suicide-abetment case. Court noted two-day unexplained FIR delay, implication on suspicion, no overt act of instigation and no criminal history, and granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, with conditions on trial attendance and non-misuse of liberty.

Mohammad Kaleel @ Kaleel vs State of U.P… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1195

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 67 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Mohammad Kaleel @ Kaleel Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Panna Lal Gupta,Shiv Prasad Chaurasia,Subrat Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Panna Lal Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present applicant is in jail since 29.08.2024 in Case Crime No.257 of 2024 under Sections 108 and 85 of BNS, Police Station Thangaon, District Sitapur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards impugned F.I.R. wherein the date of incident has been indicated as 24.08.2024 but the FIR has been lodged on 26.08.2024. The allegation has been levelled against the three accused persons including the present applicant.

¶9

As per allegations, all the accused persons have filled the sister of the informant and hanged her on a tree. There is no overt or positive act of the present applicant to instigate or abet the victim to commit suicide and the charge-sheet has been filed under Section 108 and 85 of BNS, therefore, the factum of abetment to commit suicide is necessary.

¶10

The present applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. Learned counsel has stated that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the present applicant undertakes that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail, if granted.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that there is delay of about two days in lodging the FIR and the delay has not been explained; the applicant has been implicated in the case only on the basis of suspicion; no overt act has been assigned to the applicant instigating or abetting the victim since deceased to commit suicide; the applicant has no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever and undertaking of the applicant that he shall abide by all conditions of the bail order and cooperate in the trial court proceedings, I find it appropriate to release the present applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant Mohammad Kaleel @ Kaleel , involved in aforesaid case 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he / she 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.

¶16

(ii) 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 / her under Section 269 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶17

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 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 / her in

¶18

accordance with law, under Section 208 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶19

(iv) 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 351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him / her in accordance with law.

¶20

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.]

¶21

Order Date :- 7.1.2025 Mohd. Sharif/Om

¶22

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohammad Kaleel @ Kaleel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Kaleel @ Kaleel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shiv Raj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Abhay Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Lko. and Others

Ankit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Kamla Devi and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko. and 6 Others

Rahul Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Thakurdeen vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Finance and 5 Others