Samir v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
In Chamber, the Court allowed bail to the applicant in a theft case. The decision relied on the absence of a list of stolen articles, lack of test identification parade, and no independent witnesses to the recovery, citing Article 21.
What did the court decide?
Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties (initially without sureties till courts resume normal functioning) subject to strict conditions of appearance and trial conclusion.
What the court decided
In Chamber
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48572 of 2019
Applicant :- Samir Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Khalil Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Raj Pandey
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
This bail application has been listed before me pursuant to the direction of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 04.04.2020 for consideration, therefore, same is being decided in Chamber under the extraordinary conditions prevailing now a days. Two written objections filed by learned A.G.A. on behalf of State are taken on record.
I have perused the bail application filed on behalf of Samit, who is languishing in jail since 19.8.2019 in connection with Case Crime No.709 of 2019, u/s 457, 380, 411 I.P.C., P.S.-Baraut, District-Baghpat.
The F.I.R. was lodged by Sarfaraz Ahmad on 15.8.2019 for the incident said to have taken place during intervening night of 13/14.8.2019 against some unknown persons mentioning that the informant is the owner of a three story building. During intervening night of 13/14.8.2019 when the informant, his son, his daughter and his wife are asleep, certain unknown persons barged into the house of informant through ladders and committed theft/looted Rs.1.5 lacs cash and other valuable ornaments belonging to his wife, daughter and daughter-inlaws. It is clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. that the list of stolen article would be furnished later on. Interestingly on 19.8.2019 the S.S.I. Zahid Khan has lodged the F.I.R. against the applicant u/s 4/25 of Arms Act for the alleged recovery of a knife from his pocket. It is clear from the F.I.R. (registered as Case Crime No.720 of 2019 at Police Station Baraut, District-Baghpat), that after getting a tip from the informer the police has arrested Sawez @ Gattu s/o Meharban, the applicant s/o Zamil and Azad s/o Shahzad from local chungi. After the search, the police has recovered a knife and other valuable articles from the possession of the applicant. It is simply a mystery that in the F.I.R. there is no list of stolen articles provided and the police has recovered these articles said to have been recovered after the commission of the theft. It is pinpointed that the police has never bothered to get the identification of the articles done by the informant nor any test identification parade was ever
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a theft case given the absence of identification Parade and list of stolen articles.
Whether the lack of independent witnesses to the alleged recovery of stolen articles warrants bail.
What conditions must be imposed for bail to be granted under extraordinary circumstances.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Samir
- respondent
State of U.P.
Coram
Rahul Chaturvedi
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · May
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/48572/2019
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court