Mohd. Yusuf v. State of U.P. on
Case Details
Court No. - 92 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36757 of 2021 Applicant :- Gulfam @ Katora Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Shrawan Kumar Ojha, the learned AGA for the State through virtual mode. This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant- Gulfam @ Katora for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.646 of 2021, under Sections 379, 411 and 413 I.P.C. registered at Police Station-Sector-24, District- Gautam Budh Nagar. The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below, on 4.8.2021. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged by one Sri Dinesh Kumar son of Nepal Singh against the unknown persons before the police station Sector-24, District Gautam Budh Nagar being FIR No. 0646 on 30.6.2021 at 17:34 hours under Section 379 IPC with an allegation that the complainant on the unlucky day, i.e, 30.6.2021 had parked his car having Registration No. UP16CB3366, being silver in colour outside his house. However, that was stolen and even after constant effort, he could not trace the same. Learned counsel for the applicant had submitted that the prosecution on the strength of the FIR bearing no. 0648 dated 1.7.2021 lodged by S.I. Devendra Kumar Rathi before the P.S. Sector-24, Gautam Budh Nagar at 10:00 hours under Sections 411, 414, 413, 420, 482 IPC, has shown an implanted and a forged recovery from the applicant and other co-accused, who are 9 in number. According to learned counsel for the applicant, the entire story so set up in the FIR in question, is a planted story and no recovery whatsoever has been made from the applicant and the applicant is innocent, as he was not named in the FIR in question. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that merely because earlier, the applicant had been implicated in certain cases, now criminal prosecution has been sought to be initiated against him and the applicant has been made scapegoat and further according to the learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant has not committed the said offence and further the fact that one of the co-accused being Mohd. Yusuf has been enlarged on bail in Case Crime no. 646 of 2021 under Section 373, 411, 413 IPC, in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 41607 of 2021, Mohd. Yusuf Vs. State of U.P. on 9.11.2021, while referring to RA-7 dated 25.11.2021 / 4.12.2021 and he is thus entitled to bail. Learned counsel for the applicant, on the question of criminal history, has made averments in paragraphs-9 to 12 of the affidavit in support of the applicant so as to contend that he has explained the criminal history, but thereafter he has filed a supplementary affidavit dated 12.1.2022 explaining the criminal history in relation to the averments made in rejoinder affidavit dated 25.12.2021 and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State dated 22.10.2021 by one Sri Salman Ali, S.I., P.S. Sector 24, Noida, Distrcit Gautam Budh Nagar Learned counsel for the applicant has pointed towards page-6 of the counter affidavit filed by the State so as to contend that there are 23 cases shown to be pending against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention towards paragraph-2 of the supplementary affidavit dated 12.1.2022 so as to contend that so far as Case Crime no. 105 of 2009 under Section 411, 482, 34 IPC is concerned, the applicant has undergone the sentence. So far as Case Crime no. 174 of 2009, under Sections 379, 411, 482, 34 IPC is concerned, the applicant has referred to Annexure-SA1 at page-8 of the paper book so as to contend that he has been released on bail, as parties have compounded the said offence and so far as Case Crime no. 326 of 2011 under Section 379, 411, 482, 34 IPC is concerned, the applicant has been enlarged on bail, so far as Case Crime no. 153 of 2021, under Section 414. 413, 482 IPC is concerned, applicant has not been taken on remand. So far as Case Crime no.579 of 2021, under Section 379 IPC is concerned, applicant is on bail and he has annexed order dated 4.8.2021 passed in Bail Application no. 3890 of 2021, and in similar fashion, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that so far as Case Crime nos. 566 of 2021, under Section 379 IPC, 548 of 2021 under Section 379 IPC, 549 of 2021, under Section 379 IPC, 15081 of 2021 under Section 379 IPC, 15101 of 2021 under Section 379 of IPC, 16595 of 2021 under Section 379 of IPC are concerned, applicant has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 4.8.2021 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application no. 3894 of 2021, order dated 4.8.2021 in Bail Application no. 3892 of 2021, order dated 4.8.2021 passed in Bail Application No. 3895 of 2021, order dated 15.9.2021 in CC No.4656 of 2021, State Vs. Gulfam at page 24 of the of the supplementary affidavit, vide order dated 4.9.2021 and order dated 3.8.2021 Annexures at page 27 and 30 of the supplementary affidavit, so far as Case Crime no. 211 of 2021 under Section 379 of IPC is concerned, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that bail application is pending before the Sessions Court, so far as Case Crime no. 684 of 2020 under Section 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC is concerned, applicant has been enlarged on bail on 11.11.2020, order whereof at page- 32 and so far as Case Crime no. 685 of 2020 under Section 411, 414, 420, 482 IPC, applicant has been enlarged on bail, order whereof at page-35 and so far as Case Crime no. 686 of 2020 under Section 25 of Arms Act is concerned, applicant is on bail and further so far as, Case Crime no. 657 of 2019, under Section 307, 323, 452 IPC is concerned, applicant has been enlarged on bail, order whereof is at page-38 of the supplementary affidavit and so far as Case Crime no. 385 of 2019, under Sections 411, 414, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC is concerned, applicant is on bail and in so far as Case Crime no. 1135 of 2017 under Section 406 IPC and Case Crime no. 653 of 2019 under Sections 379, 411, 414, 482 IPC are concerned, applicant has been enlarged on bail, orders whereof are at page- 41 to 45 of the supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that so far as Case Crime no.654 of 2019, under Section 25 Arms Act is concerned, applicant has been enlarged on bail and similarly, so far as Case Crime no.1677 of 2016 under Sections 411, 414, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC is concerned, applicant has been enlarged on bail, order whereof is at page-47. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that so far as Case Crime no.646 of 2021 is concerned, same is the present case, which is being argued and in so far as Case Crime no. 648 of 2021, under Sections 411, 414, 413, 420, 482 IPC is concerned, same is also the subject matter in Bail Application no. 36767 of 2021, which is connected with the present petition. In nutshell, the argument is that he has described the entire criminal history and thus is liable to be enlarged on bail. Countering the said submission, the learned AGA has opposed the bail, while further arguing that applicant has been found to have committed the offence and further recovery is also sought to be shown to be made against him and merely because he has explained the criminal history will not be of relevance for enlarging the applicant on bail. Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the question of bail, this Court prima facie finds that the name of applicant did not find place in the FIR in question and further the co-accused being Mohammad Yusuf has already been enlarged on bail and further the fact that applicant has explained the criminal history, which is not disputed by the learned A.G.A, thus, looking into the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O, in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances, this is a fit case for grant of bail. Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons. In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant- Gulfam @ Katora involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :- i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. (ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. (iv) The applicant 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (v) Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Any observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned Trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained. Order Date :- 21.1.2022 N.S.Rathour