Allowed

Mohammad Irfan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2018BAIL/48811/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 48811 of 2017, the Court granted bail to the applicant charged under Sections 420, 406 IPC. Bail was allowed with specific conditions regarding attendance and conduct during the trial to prevent misuse of liberty.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding trial attendance and conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48811 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Mohammad Irfan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- V.K. Baranwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Rekha Dikshit,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that accused applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the informant has enmity with the applicant so that the present FIR is lodged. The Account No.2787101008030 is not belonging to the applicant. The accused applicant is languishing in jail since 06.11.2017. It is next submitted that the applicant is neither a previous convict nor he has any criminal history. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and 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, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶10

Let the applicant, namely, Mohammad Irfan involved in Case Crime No.2068 of 2017, under Sections 420, 406 IPC, Police Station Dhanghata, District Sant Kabir Nagar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶12

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in

¶14

order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶16

Order Date :- 2.4.2018 Anupam S/-

Mohammad Irfan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Irfan 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

Sharda Devi Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Bhagwati Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.

Rinkoo Vs State of U.P.

Sujeet Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Farukh Vs State of U.P.