Mohd. Jaan vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:45234

Court No. - 36

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7081 of 2025

Applicant :- Mohd. Jaan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raghavendra Sharan Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

This is second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order daed 03.06.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.17456 of 2024, copy of bail order has been annexed as Annexure No.1 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.189 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 302, 201, 34 IPC, Police Station Barsthi, District Jaunpur.

¶9

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The entire prosecution story is false and fabricated. Initially the impugned FIR has been lodged under Sections 498A, 306 IPC but during investigation the case was converted under Section 302 IPC. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was hanging from fan. The applicant is the husband of the deceased. Neither applicant has demanded any dowry nor he has tortured the deceased. Further submission is that there is no specific date of demand of dowry soon before her death or any cruelty meted out to the victim even it has not been disclosed as to in what manner the demand of dowry was made and what cruelty was committed upon the deceased. Further submission is that as per postmortem report, there is no injury found on the person of the deceased. Further submission is that the police report has already been submitted. The entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against the applicant stands crystalized, therefore, contends that applicant is

¶10

liable to be enlarged on bail. Sole submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is languishing in jail since 16.12.2023 and there is no possibility of early conclusion of trial because there are 28 prosecution witnesses and till now only 3 witnesses have been examined as yet who have not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile.

¶11

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 16.12.2023 having no previous criminal history.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, but could not controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

It is apparent that it would not be possible to conclude the trial in near future and in the opinion of this Court, it would not be appropriate to keep the applicant in jail till the conclusion of the trial.

¶14

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, submission of learned counsel for the parties, but without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶15

Let the applicant- Mohd. Jaan, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :

¶16

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶17

(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 under Section 229A IPC.

¶18

(iii) 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., may be issued and if 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.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 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 in accordance with law.

¶20

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶23

With the above observation/direction, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶24

Order Date :- 2.4.2025 Ajeet

¶25

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Jaan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Jaan v. State of U.P.

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

Virendra @ Shaktiman vs State of U.P. and Another

Magan vs State of U.P. and Another

Paras Rajpoot vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Sagar vs State of U.P.

Sumit Yadav vs State of U.P.

Guddu vs State of U.P.