In a criminal bail application, the High Court framed an issue to examine if the applicant was falsely implicated. The court referred to the reformative theory and Article 21, finding it a case for bail without expressing an opinion on the merits.
Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 69
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5524 of 2019
Applicant :- Naved Khan @ Shahrukh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Girish Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.
Certified copy of the First Information Report has been produced before the Court by learned counsel for the applicant, it is taken on record.
Heard Sri Girish Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhinav Prasad learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the material brought on record.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that false recovery has been shown, nothing has been recovered from the possession or on the pointing out of the applicant. It is further submitted that there is no evidence to connect the applicant with the present matter. There is no independent witness of the alleged offence/recovery. There is also no compliance of Section 102 Cr.P.C. by the police officer who seized the alleged prohibited material. 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 is further submitted that applicant has no previous criminal history and there is also no possibility of applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Applicant is in jail since 21.12.2018, and undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment , and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let applicant Naved Khan @ Shahrukh, be released on bail in Case Crime No. 616 of 2018, under Sections 3/5/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station-Milak, district- Rampur, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:--
(i) The applicant will co-operate with the trail and remain present personally on each and every date fixed after release.
(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will
not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
Order Date :- 7.2.2019
ssm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant despite false implication allegations.
Whether the applicant satisfies the requirements of bail under Article 21 and the reformative theory of punishment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶9
(2018) 2 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Naved Khan @ Shahrukh
Vivek Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
