Allowed

Jainul v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2021BAIL/24238/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application filed by an accused charged with theft under Sections 457, 380, and 411 IPC. The applicant, a habitual offender, established no theft tools were recovered from his possession. The court granted bail on personal bond and conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was granted release on bail upon execution of a personal bond and by furnishing two heavy sureties after the restoration of normal court functioning.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24238 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Jainul Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nitin Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is a habitual thief, involved in case crime no. 238 of 2021, under Section 457, 380, 411 IPC, Police StationNauchandi, District- Meerut is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. The applicant is languishing in jail since 02.06.2021.

¶7

The contention made by learned counsel for the applicant is that an allegation of stealing two iron pipes/rods and a gate from the joint possession of three persons. There is no other tool or machinery was recovered from the possession of the applicant which was used by the applicant for cutting those articles. The fact remains that taking into the gravity of the offence with the fact that the alleged recovery was made from the joint possessions of three named accused persons, the applicant is entitled for bail. Learned counsel for the applicant has explained his criminal history in para-21 of the affidavit in all those pending cases either he has been acquitted by the concerned court or bail out.

¶8

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as

¶9

argued by the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the applicant is habitual offender to commit theft and he has a criminal history of nine cases of theft.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant- Jainul , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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/APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE/THEY SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES IS/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.

¶13

(ii) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER/THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIS/HER/THEIR UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶14

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER

¶15

TO SECURE HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT/APPLICANTS FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIS/HER/THEIR, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶16

(iv) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS 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/APPLICANTS IS/ARE 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 HIS/HER/THEIR IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶17

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS.

¶18

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

¶19

Since the bail application has been decided under extraordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant/applicants to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional

¶20

conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:

¶21

The applicant/applicants shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is/are restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶22

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

¶23

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned. Order Date :- 13.7.2021 Ankita

Jainul v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jainul 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanoj Vs State of U.P.

Ikram and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Wasid Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anuj Vs State of U.P.

Harendra Vs State of U.P.