Allowed

Manzoor Ahmad and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Jun 2020BAIL/13055/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed bail for two applicants involved in rioting and attempted murder cases. The High Court exercised its inherent power directly under Section 439 Cr.P.C. due to the lockdown preventing the accused from approaching the Sessions Court, citing extraordinary circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants on personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions, with sureties required to be furnished within a month after courts restore normal functioning.

Manzoor Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13055 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Manzoor Ahmad And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Romeshwari Prasad,Rudreshwari Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Order on the Exemption Application

¶6

The application is allowed.

¶7

Order on the bail application .

¶8

Amendment application has been filed by the learned counsel for the applicants as per orders dated 1.6.2020 and 3.6.2020, the same is allowed.

¶9

The ofÏce is directed to register this bail application as Criminal Misc. Bail Application under section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶10

In view of the guidelines laid down by this Court, the urgent bail applications have been directed to be heard through Video Conferencing.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Jai Narayan, learned A.G.A through Video Conferencing.

¶12

This bail application has been directly filed before this court under Section 439 Cr.P.C without approaching the court below. Therefore the counsel for the applicants submits that the powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C should be exercised in this case by the High Court since the Sessions Court at Meerut is not functioning on account of lockdown. His submission is that the powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C can be exercised by this court directly as held in paragraph 20 of the judgment of Sandeep Kumar Bafna vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2014(16) SCC 623, wherein Apex Court has held that the High Court has power and jurisdiction to entertain the plea of surrender and also bail thereafter directly without compelling the accused to first approach the court of Sessions.In the aforesaid judgment the Apex Court has considered the mandate of Article 21

¶13

also.

¶14

After going through the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar Bafna (Supra) this court finds that the Bombay High Court rejected the accused's bail application on the ground that it had no jurisdiction accept the custody of the accused, the Supreme Court directed the High Court to accept the custody and decide the bail application on merit, on the basis that no provision categorically prohibits the production of accused before either of the courts.

¶15

After considering the submission made by the counsel for the applicant, this court finds that in the present case no issue of surrender of accused is involved. Accused-applicant is already in jail since 23.03.2020. Only question of consideration of the bail application to the accused applicant is before this court since he has not been able to approach the court of Sessions on account of the lockdown consequent to Covid-19 scare.

¶16

Extraordinary circumstances requires extraordinary remedies and therefore this court is inclined to consider the present bail application in exercise of its power under Section 439 Cr.P.C., but without making it a precedent for normal times.

¶17

It is submitted that applicants are father and son.They have been implicated along with number of accuseds.The First Information Report has been lodged by the police on the allegation that some persons are fighting and throwing stone and bricks on each other.When police reached the spot they also threw stones on the police.The applicants approached this court directly because the court of Meerut are closed on account of lockdown due to spread Covid-19.The applicants have no criminal history to their credit.The applicants in jail since 23.03.2020.

¶18

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and

¶19

without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶20

Let the applicants, Manzoor Ahmad and Mubashshir , who are involved in Case Crime No. 126 of 2020, under sections 147, 148,149, 336, 436, 353, 307 I.P.C. and section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act P.S. Brahmpuri, District- Meerut be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶21

The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶22

The applicants shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶23

The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶24

In case the applicants have been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court their bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.

¶25

The applicants shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶26

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the ofÏcial website of High Court Allahabad.

¶27

The concerned Court/Authority/OfÏcial shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the ofÏcial website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶28

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶29

Order Date :- 4.6.2020 Atul kr. sri.

¶30

Digitally signed by JUSTICE SIDDHARTH Date: 2020.06.04 14:46:35 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manzoor Ahmad and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manzoor Ahmad and Another 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balveer Singh Vs State of U.P.and Another

Sahansar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Vs State of U.P.

Harish Vs State of U.P.

Qadir Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Kavita Devi Vs State of Up