Allowed

Siraj @ Hasim and Another v. State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lko.

Allahabad HC27 May 2022/1349/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court granted bail to two applicants charged with offences under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 341, 325, and 307 of IPC. The bail was allowed subject to furnishing bonds and strict undertakings regarding attendance and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail on furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each, subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and non-interference with witnesses.

Siraj @ Hasim and Another Vs State of… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1349 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Siraj @ Hasim And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh,Suresh Chandra Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Shri Dinesh Kumar Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri J.S. Tomar, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

By means of the present bail application, the applicants- Siraj @ Hasim and Muazzam seek bail in Case Crime No. 251 of 2021, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 341, 325, 307 of IPC, Police Station- Sirsiya, District- Shravasti, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the co-accused persons, Maqbool Khan, Ismail Khan, Chhottan and Mahmood Khan are stated to have assaulted the son and nephew of the Informant on 25.10.2021 at about 07:00 PM when they were coming from their field on a tractor.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicants are neither named in the FIR nor involved in any such offence as alleged in it. The name of the applicants were even not mentioned in the statement of the injured persons, namely, Faheem Khan and Abdul Salam. Their names have come up in the supplementary statements of the injured recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. on 30.10.2021. Learned counsel has argued that the statements of the injured have been taken after much deliberation and legal consultation. The applicants have nothing to do with the said offence. The injured persons met with an accident on the road and their tractor is said to have overturned in a field and thereby they have sustained injuries. Learned counsel has also informed that the applicant no.1 has no criminal history and the applicant no.2 has criminal history of one case in which he is on bail. The applicants are languishing in jail since 23.12.2021 and they deserve to be released on bail. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with

¶10

the trial.

¶11

Per contra, Sri J.S. Tomar, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicants by contending that the injured Abdul Salam has sustained fracture in various parts of the body which are grievous and dangerous to his life, therefore, the applicants does not deserve any indulgence. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will misuse the liberty of bail by extending threat and intimidation to the prosecution witnesses.

¶12

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicants- Siraj @ Hasim and Muazzam, who are involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶14

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶15

(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against them under Section 229-A IPC.

¶16

(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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶17

(iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the

¶18

applicants are 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.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶21

Order Date :- 27.5.2022 Siddhant

¶22

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SAHU Date: 2022.05.30 19:05:46 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Siraj @ Hasim and Another v. State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siraj @ Hasim and Another v. State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lko.

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

Jitendra Dubey Vs State of U.P.

Shubham @ Lala Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Lko.

Chaman Lal Diwakar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Nitish Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Om Vishwakarma (Second Bail) Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko

Rishab Saini Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.