Single judge allowed bail application challenging rejection, ordering release subject to personal bond and sureties, citing pandemic and constitutional rights without deciding merits.
Release on bail by personal bond and two sureties. Conditions include no witness tampering, no adjournments, and no further criminal activity.
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. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18712 of 2020
Applicant :- Mabood Hussain @ Munna Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Mishra,Irfan Ahmad Malik,Sadaful Islam Jafri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sudhir Mehrotra
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abdul Mazeed, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.131 of 2015, under Section 307 IPC, Police Station-Nawabganj, District-Allahabad (Prayagraj), during pendency of trial.
The first bail application, being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14363 of 2019, moved by the applicant was rejected by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J, vide order dated 18.12.2019.
It is contended by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant is not named in the FIR, subsequently, his name was figured in the statement of the informant recorded on 25.2.2015, in which the involvement of the applicant was shown. Subsequently, in the second statement of the injured recorded on 6.2.2016, he has stated that his earlier statement was wrong and in fact Kafeel Ahmad and Shakeel Ahmad both son of Shabbir Ahmad have fired upon him. Subsequently, again an application was given on 8.02.2016, to the effect that it was Kafeel Ahmad and Shakeel Ahmad who are involved in the case and if they are interrogated, then the case would be solved. It is further contended that the first bail application was rejected on the ground that the applicant has a criminal history of three cases, although, in para-31 of the affidavit is supported of this application, it is stated that the case mentioned in said para are wholly incorrect and the case registered as case crime number 102 of 2016, in which the
applicant was not accused person. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the accused-applicant was the co-accused in Case Crime No.102 of 2016 and a copy of the FIR is also appended at page 24 of the counter affidavit. In fact case crime no.102 of 2016, has been manipulated by hand writing. Although, it was the case being Case Crime No.117 of 2016 in which the applicant has already been acquitted vide judgement and order dated 6.4.2011. It is further contended that the applicant has criminal history of only one case being case crime no.76 of 2014 in which he was already granted bail. It is further contended that the applicant is languishing in jail since 9.01.2019 having criminal history of one case, which has been explained in paragraph no.32, if he is released on bail, there is no chance of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail or tampering with the prosecution witnesses.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.
Keeping in view the nature of the offence, argument advanced on behalf of the parties, spreading of novel corona virus in jails, 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 without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant, Mabood Hussain @ Munna who is involved in the aforesaid case crime number 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. The concerned Court shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad.
Order Date :- 14.12.2020 Neeraj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant has made out a prima facie case for bail release.
Whether the applicant is at risk of absconding or tampering with witnesses if released.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶11
Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another (2018)3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Mabood Hussain @ Munna
State of U.P.
Rajiv Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
