Naushad v. State of U.P.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
The bail application is allowed
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Constitution of India art. 21
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 82, 313
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the…
Judgment
Heard Sri Niraj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Amit Rai, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The present bail application filed on behalf of the applicant Naushad seeking his bail in connection with Case Crime No. 60 of 2011, Case No. 3484 of 2011, under Sections 376-G (2), 323 IPC, Police Station Kotwali City, District Bijnor. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant is claiming parity on the ground that the accused Furkan has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 21.5.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21144 of 2019 (Furkan vs. State of UP) and therefore, the applicant herein is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. It is however submitted that the applicant is innocent with no previous criminal history and is in jail since 29.8.2022 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
The order dated 21.5.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 21144 of 2019 (Furkan vs. State of UP) is quoted as under: "Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that identically placed co- accused Mohsin has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court on 21.12.2017 vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 43653 of 2017. He further submits that the role of the applicant is not distinguishable with the role of co- accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. It is next submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is languishing in jail since 06.01.2019 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the fact that the identically placed co- accused has already been released on bail by this Court and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Furkan involved in Case Crime No. 60 of 2011 (Case No. 3484 of 2011), under Section 376 (2) G, 323, IPC, P.S. Kotwali City, District Bijnor be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.
The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
Operative part
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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. " Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Naushad, who is involved in aforementioned 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.
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAIL TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above. Order Date :- 9.11.2022 Abhishek AGRAHARI Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The bail application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Constitution of India — art. 21; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 82, 313.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 09 Nov 2022. The bench was VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA.
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.