Allowed

Afzal Quraishi @ Singham v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2021BAIL/34586/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench allowed a bail application in a case under Section 395 IPC. The court granted bail citing parity with similarly placed co-accused who had already been released, making it a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to standard conditions of appearance and no adjournment-seeking.

Afzal Quraishi @ Singham Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34586 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Afzal Quraishi @ Singham Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 117 of 2021, under Section 395 IPC, at Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has further been submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR. His name came into light in the confessional statements of co-accused Sameer and Mahtab, who have already been granted bail. It has further been submitted that after arrest of the applicant three cases has also been slapped upon the applicant in which he is on bail. The applicant is in jail since 16.6.2021.

¶8

It is further contended that similarly placed co-accused Sameer and Mahtab have already been granted bail by this court vide orders dated 8.10.2021, 7.10.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 39247 of 2021and 36957 of 2021 respectively, therefore the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity.

¶9

I have perused the bail order of the co-accused and find that the role assigned to the present applicant is almost similar to that of co-accused person, who has already been granted bail by this Court.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail.

¶11

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicant Afzal Quraishi @ Singham, who is involved

¶13

in aforementioned case 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.

¶14

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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 IPC.

¶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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶17

(iv) The applicant 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 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 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.

¶19

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

¶20

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶21

Order Date :- 9.12.2021

¶22

Afzal Quraishi @ Singham v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afzal Quraishi @ Singham 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

Sonam Verma Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Babloo @ Ramgopal Vs State of U.P.

Sagar Vs State of U.P.

Krishna Gopal Vs Union of India

Abhishek Vats Vs State of U.P.