Allowed

mohammad junaid v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC31 Jan 2018BAIL/3436/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to Mohammad Junaid accused under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC for coercion based on lack of involvement and falsity of allegations, releasing him on personal bond with sureties and conditions to secure appearance and prevent witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to personal bond with two sureties, verification of sureties' identity, and adherence to conditions of appearance and non-interference.

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

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3436 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Mohammad Junaid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nazrul Islam Jafri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Nazrul Islam Jafri, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ravi Singh Parihar, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is next contended that applicant is neither employee of Signature Plus Finance Consultancy Private Limited nor had ever been employee in the said finance company and he has no concern with the offence in question, the said fact has been mentioned in para 4 of the affidavit accompanying this bail application. It is further submitted that recovery of Rs.330/- and two samsung mobile phones are said to have been recovered from the applicant, which does not belongs to the applicant. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.12.2017. It has been pointed out that the applicant has no previous criminal history.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge and reformative theory of punishment the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶9

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case let the applicant Mohammad Junaid involved in Case Crime No.314 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Meerut be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.

¶10

The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶11

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶12

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶13

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the

¶14

sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 31.1.2018 Dev/-

mohammad junaid v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

mohammad 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ikram Vs State of U.P.

vijay kumar @ telhu Vs State of U.P.

sameer Vs State of U.P.

pawnesh pandey alias inspector Vs State of U.P.

Uma Shankar Vs State of U.P.

Harpal Yadav Vs State of U.P.