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

Phool Miyan vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|30 April, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11342 of 2018 Applicant :- Phool Miyan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nagendra Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA for the State, and perused the record.
According to prosecution case, FIR was lodged against Babloo, Dr. Siddiqui and Phool Miyan alleging that on 29.7.2017 they killed Nekselal by way of strangulation and threw his dead body in 'Kali' river.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is languishing in jail since 15.2.2018(more than two and half month) having no criminal history. There are two so-called eye witnesses namely, Shri Ram and Mahesh. On 21.9.2017(after one month and twenty days)they have submitted an affidavit before the Investigating Officer stating therein that they have heard that incident was caused by these accused and they are not eye-witnesses of the incident. It is further submitted that there was no independent witness. Shri Ram and Mahesh submitted their affidavits on the basis of hearsay evidence. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against Babloo and Phool Miyan. Name of Dr. Siddiqui was found false. In case applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant. He admitted that the applicant has no criminal history.
Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let applicant Phool Miyan involved in Case Crime No.159 of 2017, under Section 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Nayagaon, District Etah be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions: 1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 30.4.2018 P.P.
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

Phool Miyan vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
30 April, 2018
Judges
  • Aniruddha Singh
Advocates
  • Upendra Upadhyay