Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ISLAM AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Islam And Others v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 22828 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 11774 (19 July 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 54

CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 22828 OF 2005

Islam and others Vs. State of U.P.

Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.

Heard Dr. Arun Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhay Raj Singh for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged which are kept on record.

This bail application has been filed on behalf of three accused. The applicant no. 3 Abrar was allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 15.12.2005 whereas the bail application of applicant no. 1 Islam and applicant no. 2 Ikram is argued today by the counsel for the applicant.

The submission on behalf of the applicants is that it is night occurrence. According to the narration of the first information report, the witnesses reached after the assault was completed and therefore, they had no occasion to see the incident. It is argued next that the first informant stated in his statement that the occurrence had taken place in the lonely lane and therefore, there was no occasion for any one to see that who caused the injuries to the deceased. The next argument is that in fact it is first informant who has caused the murder of the deceased with an intention to usurp the entire ancestral property. He somehow got the property recorded in his own name by fraud in the revenue record. He got his brother Aizaz killed and implicated the main family member of the applicants. The father of the applicants was alive at the time of occurrence but he was murdered subsequently and therefore, the motive alleged in the first information report is too weak. On the contrary, the first informant has strong motive to commit the offence. Lastly it is argued that after the death of the father of the applicants, the first informant has grabbed the entire property. The applicants two sisters are of marriageable age, besides two minor sisters and two brothers have been turned out from their house. The co-accused Naima along with her children is now living in Maheshpura, P.S. C.B Gang, Bareilly. There is no one to look after and pairvi of the case. On the basis of aforesaid argument, Dr. Arun Srivastava has pressed for grant of bail.

Learned A.G.A. and Sri Abhay Raj Singh have emphatically disputed the argument of the counsel for the applicant. It is submitted that the accused were known and after hearing the shrieks of the deceased, the witnesses ran at the scene of the occurrence and saw the assault being made by the two applicants in the torch light. Recovery memo of the torch has been prepared therefore, it can not be said that there was no one in the lonely lane to witness the occurrence. Besides, the co-accused Naima has been allowed bail. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant, Annexure CA-4 is an application given at the police station against the accused Naima who is all out to misuse the bail. CA-3 is challani report under Section 107/116 Cr.P.C. The statement of Mustaq alias Chhotey under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is annexed as Annexure CA-2 in support of the argument that the witnesses had seen the occurrence in the torch light which was in a working condition and the same was handed over to the police.

Learned A.G.A. has also submitted that the motive attributed for commission of the offence appears to be absolutely natural and a valid reason for committing offence by the applicants to vindicate allegations against the co-accused Naima.

After hearing the counsel for the respective parties and going through the entire record, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail. The applicants have caused as many as ten injuries to the deceased who were armed with sharp edged weapon. No good ground for bail is made out. The bail application is rejected at this stage.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since considerable length of time and the trial has not yet completed.

The learned Sessions Judge, Bareilly is directed to expedite and conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced before him without granting undue adjournment to either parties unless and until compelling circumstances arise to do so.

Dt/-19.7.2006.

Rmk.  


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.