Allowed

Firoz v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2021BAIL/18247/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In bail application No. 18247 of 2021, Court No. 71 allowed the bail petition filed by an accused charged under sections 377 and 506 IPC and the POCSO Act. The court released the applicant on personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions, citing jail overcrowding and Article 21, without expressing a view on the merits of the charge.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail executing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions to attend trial and not interfere with witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18247 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Firoz Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Srivastava,Noor Muhammad,Sayyed Kashif Abbas Rizvi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Roopesh Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Azad Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He is innocent and has no criminal antecedent. It is further submitted that there are general allegations and a concocted and false story has been set up by the prosecution whereas the applicant did not commit any offence as alleged. It is also contended that there is material contradiction in the contents of first information report, statements as also medical evidence, which shows that a false and concocted story has been set up against the applicant. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.9.2020. He undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted, therefore, he may be released on bail.

¶7

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party vehemently opposed the prayer.

¶8

Courts have taken notice of overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of Covid 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶9

Having heard submissions of learned counsel of both sides, considering nature of accusation, severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 , without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Firoz involved in Case Crime No. 65 of 2020, under Sections 377 and 506 IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Baghpat, District Baghpat be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:

¶11

The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶12

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶13

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

¶14

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.

¶15

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 trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India and another, AIR 2018 SC 2440 , if there is no legal impediment.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 4.10.2021 Digamber

Firoz v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firoz 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ritesh Verma Vs State of U.P.

Purshottam Vs State of U.P.

Sonam Verma Vs State of U.P.

Shadab Akhtar Vs State of U.P.

Tufail Khan Vs State of U.P.

Rishi Kumar Vs State of U.P.