Dismissed

Muzammil Khan v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC1 Jul 2022BA1/1569/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected the bail application filed by Muzammil Khan, an under-trial accused charged with murder under Sections 302 and 34 IPC. The judge held that eyewitnesses categorically stated the applicant fired the fatal shot, and the availability of bail was unlikely given the gravity of the offense and ongoing trial.

What did the court decide?

bail application is rejected; accused not entitled to bail.

Muzammil Khan Vs State of Uttarakhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Uttarakhand HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

First Bail Application No. 1569 of 2021

¶3

Muzammil Khan ...Applicant

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Uttarakhand and another ...Respondents

¶6

Present:Mr. Shivanand Bhatt, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Lalit Miglani, A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶8

Applicant Muzammil Khan, is in judicial custody in FIR No. 429 of 2020, under Sections 342, 504, 302 read with Section 34 IPC, Police Station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶10

According to the FIR, on 07.09.2020 at 8:30 late in the evening, the applicant and the co-accused armed with country-made pistol and knife, threatened the deceased Rashid and the applicant shot him dead. There are other averments also.

¶11

It is argued that during investigation, the Police found that two named accused were not at the place of incident. But, witnesses still are naming these two persons, as accused, who were present at the place of incident.

¶12

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant referred to the statement of PW3 Riyazuddin.

¶14

The trial is already underway. The statement of three witnesses enclosed. PW1 Naeem is the eyewitness and PW3 Riyazuddin is also another eyewitness. Both have stated that it is the applicant, who shot Rashid dead. They have also stated about the presence of other accused.

¶15

What is the role of other accused? What is the complicity of other accused is not for consideration at this stage. A person Rashid had died in the incident. The trial is already underway. The witnesses have categorically stated that it is the applicant, who shot Rashid dead.

¶16

Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not entitled to bail. The bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶17

The bail application is rejected.

¶18

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 01.072022

¶19

Jitendra

Muzammil Khan v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muzammil Khan v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satnam Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vikas Vs State of Uttarkhand

Ravi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Muzammil Khan Vs State of Uttarakhand

Neeraj Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Adanan Vs State of Uttarakhand