SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mohammed Nabi vs State Of U.P. on 12 February, 2020

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 65

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 3952 of 2020

Applicant :- Mohammed Nabi

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Zafar Abbas

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Syed Faiz Hasnain

Hon’ble Siddharth,J.

Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Jafar Abbas, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Syed Faiz Hasnain, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant, Mohammed Nabi, in Case Crime No. 391 of 2019, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 325, 452, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station- Nakhasa, District- Sambhal, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

It has been submitted by learned Senior Counsel that the role of causing injury by tabal, sariya and danda has been assigned to Jauhar, Sadvik and Rehbar, who are the sons of the applicant. The applicant has not been assigned any role of causing any injury on the deceased. He has been falsely implicated only being father of the 3 accuseds who have been assigned the role of causing injury. Theapplicant is in jail since 27.11.2019 and has criminal history of one case under Section 354 IPC wherein final report has been submitted.

Counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A have vehemently opposed the bail application. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has caused the murder of his own brother-in-law (sala). He has been implicated by the daughter-in-law in a case under Section 354 IPC and his sons are instramental in causing death of the deceased. He has also been assigned definite role in the FIR in causing injury. Therefore the argument is that he has not been assigned role of use of any weapon against the deceased cannot be a ground for enlarging the applicant on bail. The role of the applicant is different from his sons named above.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions noticed above, without commenting upon merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail.

Let the applicant- Mohammed Nabi, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

(ii) 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.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

(v) 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 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.

Order Date :- 12.2.2020

Rohit

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation