Allowed

Yaseen v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2019BAIL/15933/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 174-A IPC for evading arrest, the High Court granted bail to an elderly applicant suffering from severe heart disease. Considering his medical condition and that the co-accused was already on bail, the court emphasized strict conditions to ensure trial participation.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on personal bond and two heavy sureties with specific bonds regarding attendance and cooperation in the trial.

Yaseen Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15933 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Yaseen Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Ojha,A/S0485,Indra Kumar Chaturvedi,Saroj Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinay Saran

¶5

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vinay Saran, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A and perused the record.

¶7

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.1224 of 2017, under Section 174A IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District-Ghaziabad is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1 Ghaziabad vide order dated 03.04.2018.

¶8

As per the text of the FIR, one Gajendra Pal Singh, SHO, Kotwali Ghaziabad registered a Case crime No.1224 of 2017 under Section 174-A IPC against Yaseen and Amjad. This FIR came into existence on 21.12.2017 and the applicant was named in the FIR. He was playing hide and seek with the police from the last three months and as a result thereof, Investigating Officer of the case has taken recourse to the proceedings under Chapter VI(Part-C) of Criminal Procedure Code and processes were issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad on 16.11.2017 and served upon the applicant on 20.11.2017. It was duly published in the newspaper and was pasted at the residence of the applicant. Both the applicants were at large and were not surrendering before the police and violating the orders of the court with impunity and thus, FIR was registered under Section 174(A) of IPC against the applicant and co-accused Amjad.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that in connection with case crime no.949 of 2017, the applicant was enlarged on bail by co-ordinate bench of this Court on 08.03.2018, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-5 to the application. The only role attributed to the applicant in the aformentioned case that he hatched the conspiracy for committing the offence only. The applicant is an old man aged about 70 years. These are the factors on which the applicant

¶10

sought bail from this Court.

¶11

I have gone through the FIR as well as bail rejection order. So far as the age of the applicant is concerned, it has been seriously disputed by learned counsel for the complainant and submitted that after duping the court, the applicant has succeeded in getting his bail application allowed in case crime no.949 of 2017. In fact, he is hale and hearty man of middle age having a long criminal history and it would be detrimental that if the applicant would be released on bail, he would temper the evidence and would not permit the trial to proceed in a smooth way.

¶12

Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit filed on 21.01.2019 annexing therein the medical examination report of the applicant-Yaseen issued by Govind Ballabh Pant Institute dated 04.01.2019 and 05.01.2019 as well as the letter issued by Superintendent Jail, Ghaziabad to learned A.C.J.M. Court No.7, Ghaziabad dated 11.01.2019. The medical report shows that the applicant was admitted in the emergency on 03.01.2019 with the complaint of pain in his chest for the last 10-12 hours and after having his Coronary Angiography, 95-100% blockage is found in three arteries and the doctor has advised the Coronary Angiography Bypass Grafting-CABG(Bypass surgery) and the medical prescription shows that the applicant is aged about 68 years. It is also argued by learned counsel that co-accused/Amjad was bailed out by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.11, Ghaziabad on 14.06.2018.

¶13

Taking into account that the applicant is suffering from serious heart related disease and is aged about 60+ years and moreover, co-accused/Amjad has been bailed out, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail. Let the applicant- Yaseen , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with an undertaking that he would present on each and every date and cooperate in trial with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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

¶15

TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶16

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶17

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶18

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶19

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶20

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶21

Order Date :- 6.2.2019 Sumit S

Yaseen v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yaseen 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

Pramod Kumar Nayak Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Braj Pal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikas Singh and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rinku Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Gaurav Tiwari Vs State of Up and Another

Akram Hussain and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another