Allowed

Mohd. Shoeb v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC7 Sept 2022/8310/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to Mohd. Shoeb in a criminal case involving offences under IPC and the Indian Forest Act. The court held it to be a fit case for bail, subject to standard conditions including furnishing bond and sureties and adhering to court appearances.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties in like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Mohd. Shoeb Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8310 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Shoeb Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Shukla,Anuj Dayal Counsel for Opposite Party : - G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vijay Prakash Dwivedi, 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 Mohd. Shoeb under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.296 of 2022 for offence punishable under Sections 379, 411 IPC and 26, 41, 42, 52 of Indian Forest Act and 27, 51(1) of Wildlife Protection Act, registered at Police Station - Palia, 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 the first information report has been lodged by the civil police against ten named persons including the applicant. It is further submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or on his pointing out. The alleged recovery of 38 pieces logs of sheesham from DCM tractor and in a Swift Desire Car One lakh Fifty-four Thousand and Four Hundred rupees have been shown without complying with the mandatory provisions of 100 Cr.P.C. There was no independent/public witness of the alleged recovery. It is further submitted that as per recovery memo, all articles have been shown from the joint possession of seven persons who have been arrested from the spot. The offences are punishable upto seven years. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 05.06.2022.

¶8

It is further 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, 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.

¶9

Per contra , learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the first informant has supported the order passed by the court below and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. 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.

¶10

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.

¶11

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 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.

¶12

Let applicant, Mohd. Shoeb 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:

¶13

(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 her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶14

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

¶15

(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.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence

¶17

when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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

Order Date :- 7.9.2022 KR

¶26

Digitally signed by RABINDRA KUMAR Date: 2022.09.09 17:45:22 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Shoeb v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Shoeb 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Maqsood Vs State of U.P.

Taukeer @ Mirchi Vs State of U.P.

Abubakar and 8 Others vs State of U.P.

Mithlesh Kumar @ Mithlesh Dixit and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Ishtiyaq @ Ishtiyaq Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.