Mo. Shakeel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:45069

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6952 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Mo. Shakeel

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Of U.P. Lko.

¶6

Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar,Himanshu Kamboj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶8

A supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶9

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

¶10

The brief facts of the present case are that an FIR dated 12.02.2025 was lodged by the complainant under Section 105 of the BNS, alleging that he came to know from villagers that his grandson was taken to the police station after being beaten. When he reached the police station, he was informed that his grandson had been taken to the hospital for medical treatment. Upon reaching the hospital, he was told that his grandson had already passed away. The complainant firmly believes that his grandson died as a result of being severely beaten by Mohd. Shakeel along with some unidentified persons.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that although the applicant is named in the FIR, there is no eyewitness to the incident. It is alleged that the deceased was beaten by the public, and it was, in fact, the applicant who rescued him and brought him to the police station, following which he was admitted to the District Hospital. The prosecution case contains only general allegations. The cause of death has been recorded as shock. Out of the eight antemortem injuries found on the

¶12

body, one is a lacerated wound on the inner side of the ear pinna, while the rest are contusions and abrasions, mostly located on non-vital parts of the body. Co-accused Jabir and Jiyauddin, who have been attributed similar roles, have already been granted bail by coordinate Benches of this Court by orders dated 24.07.2025 and 08.07.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 6617 of 2025 and 6209 of 2025, respectively. Apart from the informant's statement and the alleged recovery of a rope and a stick (danda) at the instance of the applicant, there is no substantial material in the prosecution case. It is not a case of direct evidence.

¶13

It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.03.2025. 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.

¶14

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

¶15

On due consideration to the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased, the fact that co-accused Jabir and Jiyauddin have been granted bail, the applicant's explanation regarding his criminal antecedents in the supplementary affidavit and the fact that he is in custody since 08.03.2025, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶16

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶17

Let the applicant Mo. Shakeel involved in Case Crime No. 041 of 2025, under section 105 of the B.N.S., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, 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

¶18

following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) 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 174-A IPC (now Section 209 of BNS).

¶25

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are confined to the present bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 R.C.

¶26

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

Mo. Shakeel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mo. Shakeel v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. of U.P. 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

Deepesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko. and Another

Babi @ Shakir Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Surjeet Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Umer Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Guddu Alias Dharmendra Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 3 Others

Yogendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.