Allowed

Mohd. Waseem and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Dec 2021BAIL/38797/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants bail to four applicants involved in a case under sections 147, 336, 506, and 308 I.P.C. The court imposed specific additional conditions regarding attendance, witness interaction, and prosecution rights to cancel bail if intimidation occurs.

What did the court decide?

Applicants No. 1 to 4 released on bail with personal bond and two sureties each, subject to specific conditional undertakings regarding attendance and conduct during trial.

Mohd. Waseem and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38797 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Waseem And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ishwar Chandra Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants who are involved in Case Crime No. 212 of 2021, under Sections 147, 336, 506, 308 I.P.C., P.S. Syohara, District Bijnor.

¶7

As per prosecution case, six accused persons are said to have caused injury by stones, bricks, lathi and danda; several persons were sitting outside the home of Pradhan but injury was caused to nine year old child on the head; there is single injury. It is urged that applicants have been falsely implicated due to pradhani rivalry; author of the injury has not been identified by any of the prosecution side; applicants are languishing in jail since 12.04.2021, having no criminal antecedent and in case they are enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶8

Learned Additional Government Advocate opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶9

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicants No. 1 to 4, namely, Mohd. Waseem, Mohd. Waseem, Mohd. Jubair and Mahmood Alam, be released on bail in the above case on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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. is

¶14

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.

¶15

(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 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 them in accordance with law.

¶16

However, It is made clear that in case the applicants indulge in intimidating or threatening any witness, the State or Prosecutor would be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

¶17

Order Date :- 21.12.2021 Mukesh Kr.

Mohd. Waseem and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Waseem and 3 Others 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

Kuldeep Kumar Vs Union of India

Guljar Vs State of U.P.

Monu@ Saurabh Kushwaha and Another Vs State of U.P.

Anwar Alias Annu Vs State of U.P.

Ankur Vs State of U.P.

Umesh Chandra Vs State of U.P.