Allowed

Ajaj Mohammad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2021BAIL/31974/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 302, 307 IPC regarding waging of war, the court granted bail to the applicant after nearly four years of detention. Considering the delay in recording testimony and contradictory statements of witnesses, the court imposed heavy sureties and strict conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and ensure trial attendance.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond and two heavy sureties with conditions to file undertaking against adjournment and maintain presence in court.

Ajaj Mohammad Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 31974 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Ajaj Mohammad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Birendra Singh Khokher

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Ajaj Mohammad with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 326 of 2017, under Sections - 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 324, 307, 302 I.P.C., Police Station - Simbhawali, District - Hapur , during pendency of trial.

¶7

By order dated 3.12.2019, first bail application filed by the applicant has been rejected. At that stage, statements of the informant as also the injured witness recorded during investigation, had been considered. Further, criminal history of the applicant had discouraged the Court from exercising discretion.

¶8

At present, the applicant has remained in jail for almost four years and the trial has progressed in the meanwhile. Statement of the first informant Nadeem (PW-1); Nafees (PW-2) and; Rohil (PW-3) have been recorded. First informant Nadeem has contradicted his statement recorded during investigation. He has now stated that Nafees had been injured by the co-accused Raju. The injured Nafees has ascribed general role to all the accused persons. Similar is the position with the other injured witness Rohil. In that light, it has been further submitted that the other co-accused has been enlarged on bail.

¶9

In any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial.

¶10

In the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted above, and further considering the facts that the applicant has remained confined for almost four years, during which period, crucial testimony has been recorded, some of which the applicant seeks to rely on, to establish his innocence, it appears that the applicant has become entitled to bail at this stage, though on heavy sureties.

¶11

This Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11973 of

¶12

2020 (Vijay Pratap Verma Vs. State of U.P.) has, while enlarging the applicant (in that case) on bail vide order dated 09.04.2020, imposed certain conditions. I am in respectful agreement with the said order and propose to follow the same.

¶13

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Ajaj Mohammad involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his 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:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iv) The applicant 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 applicant is 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 him in accordance with law.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(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

¶21

declaration of such verification in writing.

¶22

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:

¶23

"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 non-availability 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."

¶24

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 applicant 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.

¶25

Order Date :- 5.7.2021

¶26

Prakhar

Ajaj Mohammad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajaj Mohammad 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

Dhyan Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mateen and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Kumar Prajapati Vs State of Up and Another

J.M.Housing Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner Commercial Tax and 2 Others

Smt. Meenakshi and Others Vs Phool Singh and Others

Aneeta Devi and 2 Others Vs Kiran Devi and 2 Others