Allowed

Mainuddin v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Oct 2018BAIL/40373/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a criminal bail application filed by Mainuddin, who was already in custody. The court granted bail on the premise that other co-accused had been enlarged on bail earlier and the applicant's role was not distinguishable, resulting in his release subject to standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions including non-interference with witnesses and appearance in court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40373 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Mainuddin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anjani Kumar Raghuvanshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that coaccused namely Mohammad Moinul Haq, Mohammad Jameel Akhtar, Shamsher, Babuddin, Asif Jamal, Mohd. Shahid, Kaushar, Mohd. Saifuddeen @ Sarfuddeen Shahnvaj, Imtiyaj, Mohd. Asif, Maqbool and Mohd. Kareem have already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 1.10.2018, 28.9.2018, 26.9.2018, 25.9.2018 and 5.10.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 37538 of 2018, 37286 of 2018, 36750 of 2018, 36765 of 2018, 36426 of 2018, 36425 of 2018, 36281 of 2018 and 38439 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. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Offences levelled against the applicant is not attracted in the present case. Applicant was not named in the F.I.R. There is no independent witness against the applicant. He is languishing in jail since 26.7.2018 (near about three months); having no criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶7

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 the applicant has no criminal history and the case of present applicant is identical to co-accused persons, who have been enlarged on bail.

¶8

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.

¶9

Let applicant Mainuddin involved in Case Crime No. 0200 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 342, 394, 411, 504, 506 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Lohta, District Varanasi be released on bail on

¶10

furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 24.10.2018 OP

Mainuddin v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mainuddin 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramji Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Nasir and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamal and Tohers Vs State of U.P. and Another

Riyazul Arfeen Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another