MOHARRAM v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRINCIPAL SECY. HOME LKO
BAIL/3947/2025 · 2025-05-07
Subhash Vidyarthi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 139074 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 139074 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26652 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3947 of 2025 Applicant :- Moharram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Principal Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Shankar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the records. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 351 of 2024, under Sections 103(1), 311, 317 (3), 338 B.N.S., registered at Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Pratapgarh. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 04.11.2024 stating that the informant's son used to drive a vehicle as Ola Cab. He had taken a passenger from Charbagh Lucknow at 10.00 p.m. on 31.10.2024 for Pratapgarh. The police of Rudauli police station informed the informant at about 5.00 hrs. on 01.11.2024 that his son had been killed. Upon this information the informant came from UAE to Lucknow and lodged the F.I.R. He stated that the vehicle of his son was also missing. The relevant extracts of case diary has been annexed with the bail application, wherein the Investigating Officer has recorded that about 70-80 CCTV cameras from Lucknow, Sultanpur and Pratapgarh had been examined, but in none of the CCTV cameras the car could be
identified. It was seen at a toll plaza coming from Sultanpur to Lucknow but the date when the vehicle was seen has not been mentioned in the case diary. Further, in none of the images the persons sitting in the car have been identified. The police claimed to have arrested three persons including the applicant sitting in the car at Pratapgarh on 14.11.2024 and in the custodial confessional statements the accused persons confessed having killed the vehicle owner and having taken away the car. The recovery of the car has not been witnessed by any independent person. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of bail application it has been stated that the applicant is a young man aged 19 years, he is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history. It has also been submitted on behalf of the applicant that co-accused Mohd.
Sahil has already been enlarged on bail by this court by means of an order dated 11.04.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3078 of 2025. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer for bail and he has submitted that the allegations have been established during investigation and a charge sheet has been submitted on
03.12.2024. 6. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that although extensive investigation was made by the Investigating Officer by examining the footage of 70-80 CCTV cameras the applicant has not been seen in any image; that besides the custodial confessional statement of the applicant, there is no other material to connect him with the commission of offence; that the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.11.2024 and the
investigation already stands concluded and without making any observation, which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime. 7. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed. 8. Let the applicant-Moharram be released on bail in the aforesaid 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, unless his appearance is exempted by the learned trial court. (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) Order Date :- 7.5.2025 Ram. Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench