Allowed

Junaid v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Sept 2018BAIL/24456/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application, the Court granted bail to the applicant Junaid in a case under Section 307 IPC, subject to a personal bond, sureties, and specific conditions, citing the larger mandate of Article 21 and without expressing a view on the merits of the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail with personal bond, two sureties, and conditions to appear in trial and not tamper with evidence.

Junaid Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24456 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Junaid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Bharti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of applicant in the Court today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per F.I.R. applicant and co-accused Nadeem opened fire on police party but none of them have sustained any injury. He next submitted that no incriminating article or material has been recovered either from the applicant or on his pointing out. The recovery which is said to have been made from the applicant is totally false and the same was planted by the police. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the court. Further submission is that applicant who is in jail since 13.2.2017 has no other criminal history and there is also no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant also undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is criminal history of fifteen cases against the applicant, hence he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶9

In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he has explained the criminal history in paragraph 10 of the affidavit accompanying the bail application.

¶10

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any view on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶11

Let the applicant Junaid be released on bail (if he is not wanted in any

¶12

other case) in Case Crime No. 146 of 2017, under Section 307 I.P.C., P.S. Mansoorpur, district-Muzaffar Nagar on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trail and remain present personally on each and every date fixed after release. (ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. Order Date :- 24.9.2018 Faridul

Junaid v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Junaid v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Patel Vs State of U.P.

Praveen Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rishabh Verma Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Izharul Vs State of U.P.

Yusuf Vs State of U.P.