Allowed

Shamshul and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Mar 2021BAIL/13038/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13038 of 2021, the single-judge court enlarged the applicants, Shamshul and Harfu @ Arif, on bail without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case, relying on Article 21 and a Supreme Court precedent regarding parity with a co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement of applicants Shamshul and Harfu @ Arif on bail on executing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to strict conditions.

Shamshul and Another Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13038 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Shamshul And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Preetam Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

Sri Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, Advocate has filed Parcha on behalf of the applicant, which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Preetam Yadav alongwith Sri Mr. Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. He next submitted that applicants are not named in the FIR and same has been lodged against the co-accused Abrar @ Ladda and 40-50 unknown persons. He further submitted that co-accused Abrar @ Ladda, having an identical role has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 9.2.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 47405 2020 of 2020. The case of applicant stands on similar footing, hence the applicants are also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicants are languishing in jail since 28.1.2021 and they have no criminal history except the present case to their credit.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶9

Considering the material on record as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, let the applicants- Shamshul & Harfu @ Arif , involved in Case Crime No. 255 of 2020, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 395, 427 IPC, Police Station- Dakshin, District- Firozabad, be enlarged on bail on their executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶10

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad. The concerned Court/Authority/Jail Official shall verify the

¶11

authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶12

This bail order would be subject to the fulfilment of following conditions:-

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶17

In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. are issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶19

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 come to an end.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 22.3.2021 Junaid

Shamshul and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamshul 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

Gyan Dass and Others Vs State

Tufail Ahmed Khan Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh Chand Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Vs State of U.P.

Akash Vs State of U.P.

Manna @ Salman Vs State of U.P.