Allowed

Hafiz v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2018BAIL/36079/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to Hafiz in a theft and dishonestly receiving case. The court noted the applicant was in custody for about a year and accused of offenses under Sections 380 and 411 IPC. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Hafiz released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to five standard conditions regarding appearance and non-interference.

Hafiz Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 41 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36079 of 2018 Applicant :- Hafiz Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri O.P. Singh, brief holder for the State and perused the record.

¶4

According to prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons alleging that on 17/18.7.2017, Rs. 23,000/- and some ornaments stolen by some unknown persons from the house of complainant. During investigation, one pajeb was recovered from the possession of applicant and Rs. 23,000/- was recovered from the joint possession of accused Ahteshaya and Alim.

¶5

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. With regard to person and property, identification parade has not been conducted. Offences levelled against the applicant are not attracted in the present case. Nothing was recovered from the possession of the applicant. He is languishing in jail since 8.10.2017 (near about one year) criminal history of six cases has been properly explained and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶6

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 criminal history has been explained.

¶7

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.

¶8

Let applicant Hafiz involved in Case Crime No. 416 of 2017, under Sections 380, 457, 411 IPC, Police Station Charthawal, District Muzaffar Nagar 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:

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

Order Date :- 3.10.2018//A. Singh

Hafiz v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hafiz 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

Riwai Bind Vs State of U.P.

Wajid Vs State of U.P.

Athar Vs State of U.P.

Imran Vs State of U.P.

Aakash Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Singh Vs State of U.P.