Allowed

Mintu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 May 2022BAIL/21516/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to the applicant in a criminal case involvingSections 147, 148, 307, 323, 452, and 504 IPC. The single-judge bench allowed the application, relying on the precedent of co-accused release and noting that injuries were non-fatal, imposing strict conditions for attendance and non-disturbance of trial.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties of like amount, subject to strict conditions of attendance and non-disturbance of trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21516 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mintu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shibli Naseem Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 69 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 452, 504 IPC, Police Station-Charthawa, District- Muzaffar Nagar.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. It is submitted that general role of causing injury has been assigned to the applicant by the informant as also injured(s). Specific role has not been assigned by the injured(s) or the informant to the applicant. The independent witnesses Mahaveer and Satpal have also not assigned specific role to any of the accused mentioned in the FIR.

¶8

It is further submitted that the co-accused Bablu, having similar and identical role, has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 17.05.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.19717 of 2022. Accordingly, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. It is also submitted that there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 05.04.2022. The bail order placed before this Court is taken on record.

¶9

Further submission is that on spur of moment the incident took place. The injuries are not fatal in nature and from the injury sustained it can not be established that with the intention to cause death the said injuries were caused from the side of the applicant.

¶10

Learned A.G.A., on the basis of instructions received, opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the accused-

¶11

applicant that co-accused has already been released on bail.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in mind that co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶13

Let applicant - Mintu be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime Number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶14

(i) 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 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 applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iii) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iv) 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 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court 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 against him in accordance with law.

¶18

(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶19

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶23

Order Date :- 30.5.2022

¶24

Vinay/-

¶25

Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR Date: 2022.05.31 13:05:59 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mintu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mintu 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

Rashid Vs State of U.P.

Shamsher Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Yadav @ Seetu Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Mosin Vs State of U.P.