Allowed

Waseer Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Sept 2022/6229/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Waseer Ahmad, an accused in an acid attack case, noting he was not in the FIR but implicated via a co-accused's statement. The court observed he is the brother of an injured person and referenced bail precedents to grant bail with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding witness tampering, intimidation, and court attendance.

Waseer Ahmad Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6229 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Waseer Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Srivastava,Anil Kumar Yadav,Rajesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Alok Kumar Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Waseer Ahmad under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 35 of 2021 under sections 452, 326-A, 506 of I.P.C., P.S. Salon, District Raebareli, during pendency of trial.

¶7

Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 30.1.2021 has been lodged by the father of the injured Hina Bano against the Rahmani and two other unknown persons stating that marriage of the daughter of the first informant was solemnized on 10.1.2021 with Mohd. Latif, but brother-in-law of the first informant/Sala was annoyed with the marriage of his daughter and he had threatened the injured persons Hina Bano and Mohd. Latif with dire consequences. On 29.1.2021 at 12.00 midnight Rahmani and two other co-accused persons entering the house of the first informant and poured acid upon the injured persons Hina Bano and Latif. They grievously injured. Injured persons identified Rahmani in the electric light.

¶8

After lodging of the first information report medical examination of the injured persons was conducted on 30.1.2021 at P.H.C. Salon, District Raebareli, at 4.40 a.m. After recording statements of the injured persons and other prosecution witnesses charge sheet was submitted against the applicant other co-accused Rahmani on 28.4.2021 and the applicant was arrested on 4.2.2021.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the applicant is real brother of injured Mohd. Latif. It is further submitted that as per statement of the injured persons they could not identify the present applicant at the time of incident. The name of the applicant is surfaced on the basis of confessional

¶10

statement of the co-accused Rahmani. It is further submitted that co-accused Rahmani has been granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7489 of 2021 on 13.9.2022. The applicant has no criminal history.

¶11

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.

¶12

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that -

¶13

(a) The applicant is not named in the first information report;

¶14

(b) Name of the applicant has surfaced on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused Rahmani;

¶15

¶16

(d) As per statement of the injured persons they could not identify the present applicant at the time of incident; and

¶17

(e) Co-accused Rahmani has been granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this court.

¶18

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.

¶19

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind 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

¶20

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.

¶21

Let applicant, Waseer Ahmad 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:

¶22

(i) 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

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

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

( Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.)

¶35

Order Date :- 22.9.2022 A.Nigam

¶36

Digitally signed by ANUJ NIGAM Date: 2022.09.23 18:19:11 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Waseer Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Waseer Ahmad 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

Ram Sahai Verma Vs State of U.P. through Secretary,Home,Civil Secretariat,Lko

Shivnath Yadav Alias Bhullur Vs the State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Satyendra Pandey S/O Chatrapal Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Aleem @ Chhotu @ Aleem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.and Ors.

Shiv Charan Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Kaushlendra Alias Atul Vs State of U.P Secy. Home