Aashif v. State of U.P
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 17 Oct 2022
- Bench
- DEEPAK VERMA
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 120B, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 153A, 153B, 201, 295A, 307, 332, 333, 353, 395, 427, 435, 436, 504, 505(2), 506, 511
- Explosive Substance Act ss. 4, 5
- Criminal Law Amendment Act s. 7
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 s. 83
- Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act ss. 3, 4
- Constitution of India art. 21
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Aashif with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.118 of 2022, under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 153A, 153B, 295A, 201, 511, 307, 332, 333, 353, 395, 435, 436, 427, 504, 505(2), 506, 120B I.P.C., Section 4/5 Explosive Substance Act, Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Section 83 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection ) Act and Section 3/4 Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, P.S. Khuldabad, District Prayagraj, during pendency of the trial. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Applicant is not named in the First Information Report and identically placed co-accused Shahnawaz, Iftikhar Alam, Imran Ansari, & Mohd. Rizwan Sayeed have been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 27.09.2022, 26.09.2022, 26.09.2022& 19.09.2022 respectively. He further submits that since the role of the applicant is not distinguishable with the role of co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled fro bail on the ground of parity. There is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. The applicant is not a previous convict. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.06.2022 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant, Aashif, who is involved in aforesaid case 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 17.10.2022 SKD DEY Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 120B, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 153A, 153B, 201, 295A, 307, 332, 333, 353, 395, 427, 435, 436, 504, 505(2), 506, 511; Explosive Substance Act — ss. 4, 5; Criminal Law Amendment Act — s. 7; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — s. 83; Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act — ss. 3, 4; Constitution of India — art. 21.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 17 Oct 2022. The bench was DEEPAK VERMA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.