Allowed

Babloo @ Haneef v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2018BAIL/26304/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to Babloo @ Haneef in a case involving robbery, dacoity, and cheating. The court relied on the antecedent bail granted to a co-accused with a similar role and lack of independent evidence against the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions of tampering, intimidating witnesses, and appearance.

Babloo @ Haneef Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26304 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Babloo @ Haneef Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶7

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against four unknown persons alleging that on 17.9.2017 they assaulted Subhash Chand and his wife and looted some household articles. Subhash received injuries, resultantly died. During investigation, accused Mustafa, Daroga @ Afjal, Bablu @ Mauhanif and Jahid @ Javir were arrested by the police, they confessed the offence and stated accused Bablu sold the looted property to Vishal Rashtogi. Rs. two lacs and some ornaments were recovered from the shop of Vishal Rastogi.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that coaccused namely Vishal Rastogi has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.8.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 47162 of 2018, since the role of the applicant is not distinguishable with the role of co-accused, therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. There is no legal evidence against the applicant except confessional statement of applicant and co-accused before the police personnels. Looted articles were recovered from the shop of Vishal Rastogi. Nothing was recovered form the possession/pointing out of applicant. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present case. There is no possibility to get this case decided in short period in future. There is no independent witness. Applicant was not named in the F.I.R. He is languishing in jail since 6.10.2017 (more than one year and two months) having no previous criminal history; three cases were roped after this incident and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and admitted that applicant has no criminal history and the case of present applicant is identical to coaccused Babloo @ Haneef who has been enlarged on bail.

¶10

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.

¶11

Let applicant Babloo @ Haneef involved in Case Crime No. 482 of 2017, under Sections 396, 412 IPC, Police Station Nawabganj, District Bareilly be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶12

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶13

2.The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶14

3.The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶15

4.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.

¶16

5.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.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶18

Order Date :- 6.12.2018 A. Singh

Babloo @ Haneef v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babloo @ Haneef 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Vs State of U.P.

Prateek @ Chintoo Vs State of U.P.

Hassan Alias Hasan Vs State of U.P.

Chhote Lal Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Shiva Vs State of U.P.

Mintu Masala Vs State of U.P.