Allowed

Musheer Ahmad and Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2022/15549/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed bail for the applicants in a criminal case alleging assault (U/S 147, 323, 325, 308 IPC). Relying on Article 21 and Dataram Singh, the court held that general allegations without specific role assignment support a bail grant, imposing conditions regarding court presence and anti-miscailing conduct.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and conditions to appear in court and not seek adjournments.

Musheer Ahmad and Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15549 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Musheer Ahmad And Anr. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Pandey,Mukesh Singh,Rajnish Kumar Agnihotri,Ram Baran Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mukesh Kumar,Vikas Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mukesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Vikas Shukla, learned counsel for the first informant and Dr. Surendra Singh,, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

Applicants seek bail in Case Crime No. 432 of 2021, U/S 147, 323, 325, 308 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Imaliya Sultanpur, District- Sitapur, during the pendency of trial.

¶7

As per the allegations in the FIR, the applicants alongwith other coaccused persons, seven in all, are said to have assaulted the brother of the first informant on 25.10.2021 at about 9.00 am, when he was going to sell milk at Kachnaar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize them. Learned counsel has stated that the medical report indicates that most of the injuries have been caused by hard and blunt object, except two injuries i.e. injury nos. 1 and 2. He has further stated that as per the allegations of the FIR and the statement of the injured person recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there are general allegations against all the accused persons. No specific role has been assigned to any accused person and moreover, it has not been clarified as to which weapon was being carried by which accused person. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. The applicants are languishing in jail since 16.11.2021, having no criminal antecedents. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant have vehemently opposed the bail application, but have not disputed the fact that there are general allegations against all the accused persons and that there is no criminal history against the applicants.

¶10

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 applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicants- Musheer Ahmad and Tahir alias Lallan, who are involved in aforementioned 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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

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

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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 applicants 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 against them in accordance with law.

¶16

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

¶17

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 their independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶18

Order Date :- 4.7.2022 Shalini

¶19

Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.07.06 09:55:45 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Musheer Ahmad and Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Musheer Ahmad and Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

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

Sandeep Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Krishna Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Arun Prakash Tripathi @ Satyam Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Shubham Raj Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Department Civil Secretariat, U.P., Lucknow

Mashrur Gaddi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Saiyed Mohd. Faheem @ Mohd. Noor Islam Saiyed Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.