Mohd. Yaseen vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40499

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9343 of 2025

Applicant :- Mohd. Yaseen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhushan Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

1. List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Chandra Bhushan Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 of B.N.S.S. has been filed by the applicant Mohd. Yaseen, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 25 of 2025, under Sections 85, 80(2) of BNS and 3/4 D.P. Act, registered at Police Station Ghoshi, District Mau.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased Shabana Khatoon and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that although the deceased was found to have received a ligature mark and an abrasion but the abrasion was of small dimension being of 01cm x.7cm just below chin which did not contribute to her death. The cause of death was opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem hanging which was conclusive the cause of death but still viscera has been preserved. It is submitted that general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the applicant without any specification therein. It is submitted that Shamshad Ahmad the husband of the deceased is in jail. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 26.01.2025 as stated in para 19 of the affidavit.

¶10

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the father-in-law of

¶12

the deceased. The cause of death was opined as asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging which was conclusive the cause of death but still viscera has been preserved. Shamshad Ahmad the husband of the deceased is in jail.

¶13

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Let the applicant Mohd. Yaseen , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶17

(iii) 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.

¶18

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS, 2023 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 209 BNS, 2023.

¶19

(v) 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 351 BNSS, 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 in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 BNS, 2023.

¶20

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶21

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶22

The bail application is allowed .

¶23

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶24

Order Date :- 20.3.2025 M. ARIF

¶25

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Yaseen v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Yaseen 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

Anu @ Ashoka vs State of U.P.

Wariyarshri vs State of U.P.

Shazama vs State of U.P.

Shamsher vs State of U.P.

Narendra Bhartiya vs State of U.P.

Arti Devi vs State of U.P.