Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to a man who had been convicted by trial court in a brutal murder case. Court observed that the man had no prior criminal history, he had already served approximately five years in prison, and it could take a significant amount of time for his appeal to be decided.

The bench of Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi granted the relief to Liyakat Khan in his application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Khan had been convicted under Sections 302, 201 and 411 of the IPC and 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The maximum sentence awarded to him was life imprisonment.

As per the prosecution case, the deceased had gone to irrigate the fields where he was murdered. His burnt body was found in two pieces, next morning.

The FIR in the case was filed by the brother of the deceased. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the deceased's brother's brother-in-law. This witness stated that he had come to visit his sister and, at around 11:30 PM, while relieving himself approximately 500 meters from his house, he saw the accused returning from the tubewell where the incident occurred, holding a firearm.

However, in seeking bail, Khan's counsel Advocate Siddharth Shukla argued that the prosecution's alleged motive was unconvincing, and the presence of the eyewitness was dubious. The counsel contended that it was highly unlikely for the said witness to visit such a distant area at 11:30 PM to relieve himself. 

The counsel further argued that there was no source of light in the area, and the incident took place in an agricultural field, making it difficult to see clearly. He also apprised the court that there were no independent witnesses to the recovery of the murder weapon and the recovery itself was doubtful.

Therefore, stressing that Khan had no criminal history and had not abused the liberty granted to him during trial, his counsel urged for bail. 

The bail plea was strongly opposed by both the informant's counsel and the government counsel. They argued that the incident was extremely brutal, as the deceased had been dismembered and his body burned. They also submitted that the wadding recovered from the body matched that used in a 12-gauge shotgun, which had been recovered based on Khan's information. 

The high court noted that it had been admitted that Khan was on bail during trial and had not abused the liberty granted to him. 

Highlighting that issues such as the presence of said witness and the existence of a light source would need to be examined during the appeal hearing, the court stated, "Since sufficient time may otherwise be consumed in hearing of appeal, as such, without further commenting upon merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to enlarge the appellant on bail".

Accordingly, court ordered Khan to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

"On acceptance of bail bonds, the lower court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record of this appeal," court ordered while directing for the appeal against conviction along with the paper book to be listed for 'final hearing' in due course.

Case Title: Liyakat Khan v. State of UP