Allowed

Mubarak and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2021BAIL/24749/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail for applicants Mubarak and Anju Sagar in a prosecution for theft, cheating, and forgery. The court imposed specific conditions to ensure appearance and prevented abuse of bail, applying COVID-19 directives to waive physical sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants on bail via personal bond and two heavy sureties with specific conditions regarding court attendance and prohibition of seeking adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24749 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Mubarak And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State as also perused the material placed on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants - Mubarak and Anju Sagar , with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. - 129 of 2021, under Sections - 379, 411, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C., Police Station - Nigohi, District - Shahjahanpur , during pendency of trial.

¶7

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:

¶8

(i) the applicants are accused of offence under Sections - 379, 411, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C.;

¶9

(ii) against FIR lodged on 23.03.2021, the applicants are in confinement since 14.04.2021;

¶10

(iii) the applicants claim to have cooperated in the investigation;

¶11

(iv) the applicants have no criminal history prior to the present case, however certain cases have been reported against the applicants after the present FIR;

¶12

(vi) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated. The FIR allegations are against Rahul. The recovered vehicle was lying abandoned near a petrol pump however, the petitioners have been falsely implicated by the said Rahul. Keeping in mind the nature of offence alleged and the fact that the trial is not likely to conclude at an early date, the petitioners are found entitled to bail;

¶13

(vii) in any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicants, if

¶14

enlarged on bail would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial.

¶15

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicants - Mubarak and Anju Sagar , involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on their 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:-

¶16

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses 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.

¶17

(ii) 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.

¶18

(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial 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.

¶19

(iv) 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, absence of the applicants 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 them in accordance with law.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(vii) 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.

¶23

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 06.04.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.) shall also be complied. The order reads thus:

¶24

" Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to nonavailability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release. "

¶25

It is made clear that, in the event of violation of any terms and conditions of the bail order or in the event of any attempt being made by the applicants to intimidate the witness or to tamper the evidence, the informant shall be at liberty to file a bail cancellation application supported by the relevant material, that application if filed, may be taken up on priority.

¶26

Order Date :- 23.7.2021 Abhilash

Mubarak and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mubarak 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

Surya Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sandeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Rekha Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Smt. Rukhsana Vs State of U.P.

Veer Bahadur @ Bahadur Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Parvez Vs State of U.P.