Allowed

Haneef Mohmmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Jun 2021CRLA/954/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, the Hon'ble Special Judge allowed the appellant's appeal against bail rejection. The court held that the appellant had outproven the case for bail despite the nature of the offence and set aside the impugned order, directing the release on bail subject to conditions regarding sureties during the lockdown.

What did the court decide?

The bail rejection order was set-aside; the appellant was to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond without sureties until normal court functioning was restored, subject to future submissi

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

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 954 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Haneef Mohmmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Siddhartha Kumar Mishra,Amrendra Nath Rai,Arvind Kumar,Saral Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A through video conferencing.

¶6

Since documents annexed with the memo of appeal (certified copies of lower Court bail record) and the documents (instruction and case diary) available with the learned A.G.A are sufficient to decide the appeal, the Court is proceeding to decide the same.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities, 1989) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 05.01.2021, passed by Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Mainpuri in Bail Application No. 2531 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 118 of 2020, under Sections 366, 376D, 342 I.P.C. and 3(2)5 of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Bhogaon, District Mainpuri.

¶8

Learned AGA, at the outset, informs the Court that the notice has been served upon opposite party no. 2 by concerned police station.

¶9

It is urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is the brother-in-law of co-accused Bobby. It is further urged that as per the prosecution case, sister of the first informant aged about 19 years went missing; co-accused Bobby has enticed away the victim; applicant has been implicated in the present case being the brother-in-law of the co-accused Bobby; the version of the FIR and statement of the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are contradictory; the vehicle used for taking away the victim was stated to be a four wheeler while victim in her statement recorded subsequently stated that it was a two wheeler; the statement of the victim is not corroborated by the recovery memo. It is further submitted that the applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent and he is languishing in jail since 13.7.2020; there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and the applicant undertakes that if enlarged on bail, he will

¶10

never misuse his liberty and will co-operate in the trial.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail with the contention that from the evidence available on record, prima-facie a case is made out against the appellant. He further submits that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

¶12

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶13

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶14

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and finally disposed of. The impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

¶15

Let appellant - Haneef Mohmmad, involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions;

¶16

The applicant-appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, shall cooperate in the investigation or trial and will not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶18

However, keeping Covid-19/ Lock down, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored.

¶19

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

¶20

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. It is made clear that in the event the Sub-ordinate Court is functional as usual then the normal procedure/mode of filing bail bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned will be adopted.

¶21

Needless to note that observation, if any, has come in this order, that is only for the purpose of deciding this bail application.

¶22

(6) The party shall file computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶23

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

¶24

(8) 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.

¶25

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 6.4.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.), shall also be complied.

¶26

The order reads thus:

¶27

"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accusedapplicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."

¶28

Order Date :- 28.6.2021 Kuldeep

Haneef Mohmmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haneef Mohmmad v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Vimal Vs State of U.P.

Sazid Vs State of U.P.

Udayveer Singh Vs State of U.P.

Paramhansh Saini @ Rajesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amir Vs State of Up and Another

Ajay @ Bauwa Gupta Vs State of Up and Another