Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Mukeem vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|29 March, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 4
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11437 of 2016 Applicant :- Mukeem Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunder Singh,Haya Rizvi,Narendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 693 of 2015, under Section 304 I.P.C., P.S.- Loni Border, District- Ghaziabad, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
In the F.I.R. of the incident, which was lodged by one Smt. Arti Bai after unexplained delay of two days of the occurrence, it is alleged that the son of the accused and the informant, Rehaan had insisted to visit his maternal uncle's house on which, the accused tied his hands and tossed and banged him against the ground and when the informant reached there, he was left unconscious. She then took her son to G.T.B. Hospital who died on the way. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case by the informant due to animosity. It is next submitted that when the accused and the informant were involved in an argument on the roof, Rehaan had come crying to them but was pushed by the informant herself and he fell down the stairs. It is also submitted that the accused and the informant lived together. There was contradiction between the medical evidence and the allegations made in the F.I.R. It is next submitted that nobody had seen the occurrence. No incriminating article has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. It is lastly submitted that the applicant who is in jail since 16.09.2015 and whose trial has not made any progress till date, is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.
Per contra learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the informant Smt. Arti Bai in her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. has corroborated the prosecution version as narrated in the F.I.R. The medical evidence on record corroborates the prosecution case. The postmortem report indicates that the cause of death of Rehaan was shock as a result of ante- mortem head injury. Moreover, the applicant who has criminal antecedents, is not entitled to be released on bail.
After having heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perused the material brought on record and considering the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.
The prayer for bail is refused.
However considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the concerned trial Judge is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
Subject to aforesaid direction, this bail application stands finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.3.2018 HR
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Mukeem vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
29 March, 2018
Judges
  • Bala Krishna Narayana
Advocates
  • Sunder Singh Haya Rizvi Narendra Kumar Singh