Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 307 (ALL)

Nangey Ansari v. State Of U. P.

2011-02-07

RAJESH CHANDRA

body2011
JUDGMENT: Rajesh Chandra, J. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. It is alleged that in the intervening night of 6/7.10.2010 Yar Mohammad and his wife had been murdered by unknown person. The case of the prosecution is that during investigation one Mansoor disclosed that on 6.10.2010 he had seen the accused applicant and four of his companions going towards the village at about 9.00 P.M. and again he had seen them coming at about 1.00 a.m. and they were seen in a?? dishevelled? position. The informant came to know in the? morning? that Yar Mohammad and his wife have been murdered. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that there is no direct evidence against the accused applicant, nothing has been recovered from his possession, and even there is no evidence of last seen. 2. The learned A.G.A. on the other hand argued that there is criminal history of the accused applicant and he may not be released on bail. In reply the learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that in 4 cases he has already been acquitted and this fact has been stated in the Rejoinder affidavit filed today. One case shown at crime no. 119 of 1983 is not related to the accused, another case under section 110 Cr.P.C. has already been? concluded? the case at Crime No. 48 of 1999 was not registered against him and a case at crime no. 12 of 1998 relates to some notice under the Gangster Act regarding the property. The case at Crime No. 1397 of 2010 has been registered after the present case and thus only case under section 4/25 Arms Act is pending against the accused. 3. I considered over the matter. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and without entering into the merit of the case, I am satisfied that a case for bail is made out and the accused applicant may be released on bail by imposing certain conditions. 4. 3. I considered over the matter. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and without entering into the merit of the case, I am satisfied that a case for bail is made out and the accused applicant may be released on bail by imposing certain conditions. 4. Let the accused-applicant Nangey Ansari involved in Case Crime No. 1303 of 2010 under section 147,148,149,302 I.P.C., Police Station Gilaula District Shravasti be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned on following conditions that: 1.The accused shall attend the court in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by him. 2.He shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused. 3.He 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. 4.He will not temper with the evidence. 5.The applicant shall not seek any adjournment when the prosecution witnesses are present. In case any condition is violated the courts concerned shall inform the High Court so that necessary steps may be taken for the cancellation of the bail.