Allowed

Abdul Rahim v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2021BAIL/35946/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the second bail application filed by Abdul Rahim during trial. After hearing counsel and perusing records, the court found no convincing material to indicate a possibility of tampering with evidence, and since co-accused with identical roles were released on bail, the applicant was enlarged on bail subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant, Abdul Rahim, was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding attendance, non-interference, and cooperation with the trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35946 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Abdul Rahim Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Mishra,Gaurav Singh,P.S. Chauhan,Ravi Kant Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mukhtar Alam

¶4

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

This is the second bail application. The first bail application was dismissed on 4.8.2017 by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Srivastava, J., as not pressed.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record. None is present for the informant.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Abdul Rahim , seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 265 of 2016, under Section(s) 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 307 I.P.C., registered at P.S.- Kotwali Dehat, DistrictSaharanpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that there is lot of contradictions in the F.I.R. as well as in statement of the injured - Musarrat who is wife of the deceased- Gaffar. It is further submitted that post mortem reports do not corroborate with the prosecution story as from the perusal of the records it appears that there was mass firing but from the perusal of post mortem report, it appears that it is a case of maximum three gun shots. It is further argued that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant. It is next submitted that co-accused, Nafis, Naim and Riyasat, having identical role, have already been granted bail. The applicant has no previous criminal antecedents as stated in para-18 of the affidavit and is in jail since 11.5.2017. If he is released on bail he will never misuse the liberty and will cooperate with trial.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserves any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made

¶11

at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Abdul Rahim, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two 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:-

¶13

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶14

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she 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.

¶16

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her 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/her, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.

¶17

(V) 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/her in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him/her under Section 229-A IPC.

¶18

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

The bail application is allowed.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 23.2.2021 Vandana

Abdul Rahim v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rahim 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bal Chandra Vs State of U.P.

Badaku Alias Manish Vs State of U.P.

Devendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Amarjeet Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sayed Kamar Khushnoor Alias Sheru Vs State of U.P.

Rinku Alias Ram Lal @ Vimal Kumar Vs State of U.P.