Allowed

Mohammad Hafiz v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Sept 2021BAIL/15793/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant, relying on the reformative theory of punishment and Article 21. The court imposed conditions regarding sureties and compliance.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15793 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Mohammad Hafiz Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Janardan Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Janardan Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No.206 of 2018, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Phoolpur, District Azamgarh is seeking enlargement on bail during pendency of trial.

¶7

It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that according to the gang chart the applicant is said to have been involved in three criminal cases, in which he has already been enlarged on bail and the copies of the same have been annexed as Annexure No.3 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. Apart from the above mentioned three cases, applicant has also been implicated in four other cases in which also he is on bail, copies of bail orders are annexed as R.A.01 to the rejoinder affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case due to police rivalry. He is not a member of any gang. There is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future due to heavy dockets. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.09.2018 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶10

Let the applicant, Mohammad Hafiz involved in aforesaid crime 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.

¶11

The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before

¶12

the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶13

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶14

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶15

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶20

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the 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.

¶21

Order Date :- 14.9.2021

¶22

S.P.

¶23

Digitally signed by Justice Rajiv Joshi Date: 2021.09.14 16:54:45 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohammad Hafiz v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Hafiz 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

Lalit Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Azad Vs State of Up

Pramod Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Gufran Vs State of U.P.