Allowed

Mujammil v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2021BAIL/44305/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the bail application of the applicant in a case under Section 136 of the Indian Electricity Act. Recognizing the pandemic-inducing overcrowding in jails and submissions of false implication, the Court released the applicant on bail with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties on conditions regarding tampering with evidence and appearing before the trial court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44305 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Mujammil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhiraj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Dhiraj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Vikas Sahai learned AGA for the State.

¶6

A first information report was lodged as Case Crime No.0010 of 2021 at Police StationBadagaon District-Saharanpur under Section 136 of Indian Electricity Act.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Special Judge (E.C Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, on 13.09.2021.

¶8

The applicant is in jail since 05.02.2021, pursuant to the said F.I.R.

¶9

Shri Dhiraj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant was not named in the F.I.R. Recovered

¶10

items were planted on the person of the applicant to frame him in the instant case to show proficiency of police investigators. There is no independent witness or public witness to the alleged recovery. Learned counsel for the applicant has explained the criminal history of the applicant and further contend that the applicant has been falsely implicated in a number of cases in close proximity to the instant case and the applicant has become a soft target for the police authorities who repeatedly nominated him in unnamed F.I.Rs. only to burnish their professional credentials. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the same have no bearing on the instant case. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner. Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Vikas Sahai, learned AGA for the State could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. Learned AGA does not contest the criminal history of the

¶11

applicant as disclosed in the bail application. 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

Let the applicant-Mujammil involved in Case Crime No.10 of 2021 at Police Station-Badagaon District-Saharanpur under Section 136 of Indian Electricity Act, 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.

¶15

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

¶16

The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 6.12.2021 Nadeem

Mujammil v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mujammil 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

Irfan Vs State of Up

Banti Sahu @ Shivendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Jabbar Vs State of U.P.

Manvendra Patel @ Ranu Patel Vs State of U.P.

Vishwajeet Dev @ Visnu Vs State of U.P.