Arif Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 16

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4764 of 2020

Applicant :- Arif Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Akhilesh Singh on behalf of the first informant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajeev Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the first informant and the learned A.G.A.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant, Arif, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 491 of 2018, under Sections 302, 504 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Kotwali Kaimganj, District Farrukhabad.

¶8

The F.I.R in the present incident was lodged on 21.08.2018 at about 19:02 hrs for an incident alleged to have taken place on 21.08.2018 at about 13:30 hrs by Vashir Shah @ Nanhe Shah mentioned therein that his son Tauquik @ Rangeela and Tafsil were working in the filed wherein Tariq, Arif and Siraj reached there, started abusing them and when the same was resisted by his son the accused persons who were 03 in number and named in the F.I.R took out their 315 bore country made pistol and started firing and subsequently, Tariq fired with the country made pistol on his son Tauquik @ Rangeela as a result of which he died on the spot.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that subsequently in the statement recorded under Section 161 of the first informant, Vashir Shah @ Nanhe Shah / Annexure- 5 and Tafsil / Annexure- 6 to the affidavit they have specifically stated therein that the present applicant Arif assaulted Tauquik with a country made pistol. He further argues that in the post mortem report the doctor has found one firearm injury only having an entry and exit. He argues that the prosecution version has been shifted by the first informant and the alleged witness in which role of firing has been assigned to the present applicant whereas in the F.I.R Tariq was given the specific role of firing upon the deceased. The applicant is in jail since 22.08.2018 having no criminal history.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the first informant and the other eye witness being brother of the deceased have assigned the specific role of firing on the deceased by the present applicant but could not dispute the other arguments raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶11

Let the applicant, Arif , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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:-

¶12

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶15

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶16

(V) 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 him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶17

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 11.2.2020 AS Rathor

¶20

(Samit Gopal,J.)

Arif v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arif v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hori @ Hori Lal Vs State of U.P.

Rammohan Vs State of U.P.

Firoz Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Singh Rajpoot Vs State of U.P.

Omkaar @ Abhishek Vs State of U.P.

Monu Vs State of U.P.