Allowed

Fareed v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Nov 2021BAIL/39053/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous bail application allowed the release of the applicant Fareed on bail. The Single Judge found merit in the counsel's submission regarding false implication and lack of independent witnesses for recovery. The court referenced prison overcrowding during the pandemic as a relevant factor.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount subject to specified conditions including non-tampering with evidence and appearing before the trial court.

Fareed Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39053 of 2021 Applicant :- Fareed Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Dutt Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Krishna Dutt Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶5

A first information report was lodged against the applicant as Case Crime No. 329 of 2021 at Police Station-Katghar, DistrictMoradabad under Section 392 I.P.C.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad, on 17.08.2021.

¶7

The applicant is in jail since 08.07.2021, pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶8

Sri Krishna Dutt Tiwari, learned counsel for applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The recovered amount has been planted on the person of the applicant to frame him in the instant case and to show proficiency of police investigators. There is no independent witness to the recovery. Learned counsel for the applicant has explained the criminal history of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant claims congruency in role with co-accused person and seeks parity in relief with the said co-accused namely Mohammad Faizan, who has been granted bail by this Court on 08.10.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36423 of 2021 (Mohammad Faizan Vs. State of U.P.). Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will fully cooperate in the

¶9

criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶10

Learned AGA points out that the applicant has a history one criminal case registered in the year 2019 under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

¶11

Rejoining the issue learned counsel for the applicant submits that the aforesaid case has no bearing on the instant case.

¶12

Sri Vikas Sahai, learned AGA for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record nor did he contest the agreement of parity.

¶13

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India) . These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶14

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶15

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant- Fareed involved in Case Crime No. 329 of 2021 at Police Station-Katghar, District- Moradabad under Section 392, 411, 120-B I.P.C. be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶17

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶18

The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶19

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶20

The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶22

Order Date :- 27.11.2021

¶23

Pravin

Fareed v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fareed 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tarbabu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Vs State of U.P.

Vinay Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Vikas @ Vishal Jatav Vs State of U.P.

Shiva @ Shashank Vs State of U.P.

Viresh @ Safiya Vs State of U.P.