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

Tazim Khan & Another vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|31 July, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7040 of 2017 Appellant :- Tazim Khan & Another Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Vinay Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Razaullah Khan,Ved Prakash Pandey
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Re: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.388552 of 2017
List revised. No one is present on behalf of the first informant.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants-appellants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicants-appellants submits that applicants-appellants have been falsely implicated and have been wrongly convicted for the offences under Sections 354 and 366 I.P.C.; that the applicants-appellants have been sentenced with imprisonment for a maximum period of 10 years under Section 366 IPC and fine; that the entire prosecution story is false and incorrect; that the real fact is that Tanjeem, real brother of appellant No.1 and cousin brother of appellant no.2 was murdered on 9.2.2013 regarding which FIR was lodged by Wasim Khan, against Pappu and Monis at Case Crime No.96 of 2017 under Section 302 and 323 IPC; that in Case Crime No.96A of 2013 Pappu and Monis were convicted and sentenced with life imprisonment for the murder of Tanjeem, brother of applicants-appellants and their father Mohd. Hashim Khan was also convicted under the Arms Act; that subsequent thereto an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was got moved by accused of above murder case on 25.5.2013, regarding the alleged incident dated 8.2.2013 in which the sister of above accused was allegedly kidnapped by the applicants- appellants and on 9.2.2013 during dispute when Tanjeem died, their sister allegedly managed to come back to home; that on above application by Court's order, Case Crime No.96A of 2013 was registered against the applicants-appellants under Section 356, 452, 354, 366, 368 and 427 IPC; that in above case upon investigation, final report was submitted and on protest filed on behalf of the first informant, it was treated as complaint and in the said complaint case the applicants-appellants were summoned; that during trial applicants-appellants were on bail and have not misused the liberty of bail; that the trial court has acted wrongly and illegally in convicting the accused-appellants and they have every hope of success in appeal; that there is no likelihood of appeal to be heard in near future due to huge pendency of old appeals before the court; that the applicants- appellants have no criminal history; that the applicants- appellants undertake that they will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall remain present before the Court as and when required and they will cooperate with the hearing of appeal for which their counsel will remain present on the dates of listing; that the applicants-appellants are in custody since 14.11.1987, the date of impugned judgment.
Learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that the applicant-appellant has been rightly convicted for the offences; that there is sufficient evidence of offences on record against the applicant-appellant.
Considering the unlikelihood of early hearing of appeal, complicity of convicts and sentence as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for grant of bail during pendency of the appeal.
Let the applicants-appellants Tazim Khan and Salim Khan be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Judge concerned in S.T. No. 405 of 2015, Complaint Case No.69 of 2014, under sections 356, 452, 354, 366, 368 and 427 I.P.C., P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Shahjahanpur, and subject to deposit of 50% amount of fine imposed on him and undertaking that applicant-appellant will cooperate with the hearing of the appeal.
As soon as personal and surety bonds are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by trial Judge concerned to be kept on the record of this appeal.
Order Date :- 31.7.2018 Deepika
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

Tazim Khan & Another vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
31 July, 2018
Judges
  • Harsh Kumar
Advocates
  • Vinay Kumar Tripathi