Allowed

Arif Mota v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2022BAIL/2446/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application filed by Arif Mota seeking release under Section 439 CrPC. Court allowed bail noting applicant has no criminal history, facing multiple IPC charges, and imprisonment predates pandemic overcrowding concerns while emphasizing gravity of offences.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence and cooperating in trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2446 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Arif Mota Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Agarval,Shiv Singh Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ankit Agarval, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri A.K. Shukla, the learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant-Arif Mota for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.1595 of 2021, under Sections 323, 307, 354 (Kha), 294, 34, 324, 325 IPC, registered at Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar.

¶7

The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 22.12.2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged by Kunwarpal against the applicant and three others before P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar being FIR no.1595 of 2021 on 7.11.2021 at 21.11 hours in the above noted Sections regarding commission of offence with an allegation that the wife of the complainant was returning after purchasing vegetables then the applicant along with three others attacked on her and also behaved indecently and also torn her cloths and administered beating.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that he has been falsely implicated in the case in question in order to settle the score. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that except one injury, all the injuries were simple in nature. In X-Ray examination it was found that there was fracture. Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that the allegations so sought to be are general in nature and no specific role has been assigned to him. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of this Court towards paragraph-20 of the bail application so as to contend that the applicant does not possess any criminal history. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the applicant is unnecessarily languishing in jail since 9.11.2021. If he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty, he be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Countering the said submission, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail while arguing that offence has been committed

¶11

by the applicant, as such he has been proceeded in the case in question, but he could not dispute the fact that applicant has no criminal history.

¶12

Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the question of bail, this Court prima facie finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail, as the applicant does not possess any criminal history and is languishing in jail since 9.11.2021, as also looking into the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O, in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances.

¶13

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶14

In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant-Arif Mota involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶16

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(v) Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶21

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

¶22

Any observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned Trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶23

Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained.

¶24

Order Date :- 16.2.2022

¶25

Gaurav

¶26

Digitally signed by GAURAV KULSHRESTHA Date: 2022.02.22 14:34:15 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arif Mota v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arif Mota 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ritik Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Bharti Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home at Lucknow

Dara Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Vs State of U.P.

Haridesh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home

Sagar Vs State of U.P.