Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 124912 (ALL)

SHOEB v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO

BAIL/1628/2025 · 2025-03-19

Subhash Vidyarthi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15961 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1628 of 2025 Applicant :- Shoeb Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Kumar Verma,Suraj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Heard Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, the learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Shikha Sinha, the learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 855/2024, under Sections 3 (5), 103 (1), 351 (2) of B.N.S., 2023 Police Station Kotwali Sadar, District Lakhimpur Kheri. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged at 18.04 hours on 06.11.2024 against five persons, including the applicant, stating that the informant's grandson had married Saira daughter of co-accused-Nisar out of mutual love due to which the accused persons kept animosity against the informant. Police had challaned both the parties under Section 107, 116, 151 CrPC after their marriage. Due to aforesaid animosity, all the accused persons caught hold of informant's grandson-Mubeen when he had gone to attend the call of nature at about 5:00 A.M. on 06.11.2024, they gaged his mouth with a cloth and strangulated him with silk rope and killed him and thereafter hanged him from a tree. The informant stated that he, Nasrat Ali and Kallu had seen the accused persons hanging the dead body of Mubeen from the tree. 4. Prior to lodging of FIR, Mohammad Ameen-father of the deceased and son of the informant had given a written complaint at the police station informing that the dead body of his son was found hanging from a tree at 5:00 A.M. This information was entered in the general diary of the police station at 09:59 hours on 06.11.2024. The police conducted inquest which was witnessed by Kallu (mentioned in the FIR to be an eye witness of hanging). None of the witness mentioned that anyone had seen the accused persons hanging the deceased. 5. The post mortem examination report mentions a ligature mark around the neck besides an abraded contusion 5cmx3cm over back of right ankle. 6. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history. Co-accused Yunus has been granted bail by a separate order passed today. 7. The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of the material collected during investigation, which has already been annexed with this bail application. A copy of the charge sheet dated 15.01.2025 has also been annexed with this counter affidavit. 8. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that in the initial complaint given to the police, the father of the deceased did not make a mention of his son having been killed and hanged; that in the inquest proceedings conducted about 5 hours after the incident also, no such thing was told by the alleged eye witness of the incident, who has witnessed the inquest proceedings and that the allegation of hanging has been levelled for the first time in the FIR lodged after a delay of more than 12 hours and that the applicant has no criminal history, he is languishing in jail since 09.01.2025 and the charge sheet has been submitted on 15.01.2025, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 9. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed. 10. Let the applicant-Shoeb be released on bail in the aforementioned case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; (ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; (iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court. [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] Order Date :- 19.3.2025 Mohd. Sharif Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench