Allowed

Taukeer @ Mirchi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2022/13440/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC. The court held, considering the totality of facts, the nature of allegations, and without expressing an opinion on merits, that it is a fit case for granting bail subject to standard conditions including furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties in like amount, subject to various conditions.

Taukeer @ Mirchi Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13440 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Taukeer @ Mirchi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Shabbir Razvi,Priyanshu Shukla,Shaquiel Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Shaquiel Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shiv Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Taukeer @ Mirchi under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.277 of 2021 for offence punishable under Sections 307, 333, 323 I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, registered at Police Station- Nighasan, District- Kheri, during pendency of the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that as per allegations of first information report dated 25.05.2021, only one private person is injured and role of incriminating fire has been assigned to the present applicant over the police party. It is further submitted that the medical report for the injuries of firing to the police party has been prepared to commit police encounter with the applicant on the next day of the present incident. It is further submitted that on 26.05.2021, a further police encounter case has been registered as Case Crime No.278 of 2021, under Section 307 I.P.C., Police Station Nighasan, District Kheri in which the police assaulted fire on his leg.

¶8

It is further submitted that the applicant has explained criminal history of twelve other cases which are related to the year 2017, 2018, 2020 and 2021. It is further submitted that except one case of attempt to murder, three other cases have been registered by the police against the applicant. The police had registered the other criminal cases against the applicant on the basis of confessional statement of the applicant and in all the cases, the applicant is granted bail by the learned court below.

¶9

It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 26.05.2021, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶10

Per contra , learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the court below and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But they would not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶12

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the provision of Section 19(4) of U.P. Gangster and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act and the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let applicant, Taukeer @ Mirchi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶14

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with

¶15

the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶17

(iii) The applicant 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶20

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

¶22

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶23

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶24

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶25

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the

¶26

official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶27

Order Date :- 6.9.2022 Saurabh

¶28

Digitally signed by SAURABH VERMA Date: 2022.09.07 17:24:16 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Taukeer @ Mirchi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taukeer @ Mirchi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Modh. Ajju Vs State of U.P.Thru.Secy.Deptt.of Home Lko.and Another

Nisabu @ Nisabuddin Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Anoop Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home and Anr.

Manoj Kumar Soni @ Pepsi Vs State of U.P.

Maqsood Vs State of U.P.

Parvati Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.