Allowed

Mujahid @ Soni v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2022BAIL/2675/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by an accused charged under the U.P. Gangsters Act. The Court observed that the co-accused was on bail and considered the jail overcrowding during the pandemic as relevant factors, granting bail as a fit case.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount with specific conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2675 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mujahid @ Soni Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved for seeking bail in Case Crime No. 149 of 2021, under Sections 3(1) U.P. Gangsters & Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police StationKhajuriya, District- Rampur.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the court below, on 18.12.2021.

¶8

The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has drawn the attention of the court towards page no. 23 of the bail application being the gang chart so as to contend that in case crime no. 103/2021, u/s 3/5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act, the applicant has been bailed out and in this regard he has drawn the attention of the court towards supplementary affidavit dated 15.02.2022 to show that the applicant has been bailed out by coordinate bench of this court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 1642/2022 vide order dated 02.02.2022, so far as case crime no. 22 of 2021 u/s 3/25 Arms Act, he has been enlarged on bail on 16.03.2021 by the court below followed by the order wherein he has been bailed out by the court below in bail application no. 2141/2020 reference whereof has been made at page no. 33, in case crime no. 350/2019 u/s 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 Animal Cruelty Act, he has been bailed out by the court below on 17.10.2019 in Bail Application No. 1899/2019, order dated 02.06.2020 passed in case crime no. 63/2020 u/s 3/25 Arms Act wherein he has been bailed out. He further argued that the coaccused Munne has already been enlarged on bail by coordinate bench of this court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 56290/2021 vide order dated 11.02.2022, therefore the applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. He next contended that the applicant is unnecessary

¶9

languishing in jail since 08.09.2021.

¶10

Countering the said submission, learned AGA for the State has though opposed the bail but he could not dispute the fact that the applicant has satisfactorily explained the criminal history and further that the co-accused has been bailed out.

¶11

Considering the submission so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, on the question of bail, prima facie this Court finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail as the applicant has satisfactorily explained the criminal history and the co-accused has been enlarged on bail and looking into the nature of the 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

Let the applicant Mujahid @ Soni 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 :-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 21.2.2022 Nisha

¶23

Digitally signed by NISHA KUMARI Date: 2022.02.24 18:10:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mujahid @ Soni v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mujahid @ Soni 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

Suresh Singh Rana Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Madheshiya Vs State of U.P.

Devendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Baij Nath Maurya Vs State of U.P through Its Secretary Home Up at Lucknow

Kishan Singh Chahar Vs State of U.P.

Anuj Kumar Vs State of U.P.