Allowed

Irshad @ Ijhar v. State of U.P. though it Principal Secretary (Home)Lucknow

Allahabad HC14 Mar 2022BAIL/3590/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail was sought in a murder, rioting and conspiracy case, with parity claimed against co-accused already released. The court allowed bail without commenting on the merits, requiring a personal bond and two sureties and imposing attendance and non-adjournment conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to attendance, non-adjournment and other specified conditions.

Irshad @ Ijhar Vs State of U.P. though it… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3590 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Irshad @ Ijhar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Though It Principal Secretary (Home)Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Daga

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Atul Kumar, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶6

This application for bail has been filed by applicant Irshad @ ijhar, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 598 of 2020, under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 120B IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffar Nagar during pendency of trial.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

It transpires from record that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 23.8.2022, a prompt F.I.R. dated 23.8.2020 was lodged by first informant and was registered as Case Crime No. 598 of 2020, under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 120B IPC, Police StationKotwali Nagar, District Muzaffar Nagar. In the aforesaid F.I.R., 8 persons namely, Sonu Sakka, Naseem, Shamim Godhna, Sartaj, Dilshad, Shahnawaz, Nafees, Jakir have been nominated as named accused.

¶9

In brief, according to the prosecution story as unfolded in F.I.R, it is alleged that criminality was committed by named accused upon first informant and his brothers. On account of gun shots, fired by accused, Asif sustained gun shot injuries. Occurrence was witnessed by first informant Dilshad and his brother Sahil.

¶10

After registration of aforementioned F.I.R, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C. The inquest of the body of deceased was conducted on 23.8.202. In the opinion of panch witnesses, the cause of death of deceased was gun shot injuries sustained by him. As such, it was homicidal. Thereafter, post mortem of body of deceased was conducted. In the opinion of autopsy surgeon, the cause of death of deceased was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem fire arm injuries. The autopsy surgeon found following ante-mortem injury on the body of deceased:

¶11

"1. Fire arm entry wound 0.5 cm x 0.4 cm. cavity deep on left side of head 6 cm behind from left ear.

¶12

Fire arm exit wound 3x2 cm on right side of head 5 cm above left ear.

¶13

Fire arm entry wound 0.9 cm x 0.5 cm on left side of 1.5 cm awa left war ibule.

¶14

Fire arm Exit wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm on right side of head 9 cm below from right ear.

¶15

Fire arm entry wound 0.9 cm x 0.5 cm right side front of chest, 6 cm, away from right nipple at 2 o clock position

¶16

Fire arm exit wound 1 cm x 0.6 cm upper part of exillo

¶17

Fire arm entry wound 0.9 cm x 0.5 cm on right side of chest 13 cm below from right axilla

¶18

Fire arm exit wound 1.5 x 1.0 cm on outer aspect right side of chest 5.0 cm below from right axial

¶19

Fire arm entry wound x 0.7 cm on inner aspect left arm 2.0 cm above from left

¶20

Fire arm exit wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm back of left forearm 3 cm below from left elbow

¶21

Fire arm entry wound 1.0 x 0.6 cm on outer aspect left side of chest 10 cm. away from left nipple at 4 o clock positiion 14 cm away from left side bullet recovered.

¶22

Fire arm entry wound on left side of abdomen 14 cm away from left side bullet recovered from cavity."

¶23

During course of investigation, Investigating Officer examined various witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. and also collected other material on the basis of above, complicity of certain persons not named in F.I.R. was also found to be established in the crime in question. Ultimately, Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet dated 25.12.2020, whereby, two of the named accused namely, Sonu and Naseem and six persons not named in the F.I.R i.e. Munwar, Ahmad, Suleman @ Sonu, Guljar, Irshad and Nisar @ Pinna hav been charge sheeted.

¶24

At the very outset, learned counsel for applicants contends that named coaccused namely, Gulzar and Ahmad and Manavvar, Monu @ Sulemant and

¶25

Nisar @ Pinnu @ Mulla Ji who are not named in F.I.R. have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide separate orders, which are quoted herein under:

¶26

" Gulzar dated 23.3.2021

¶27

Heard Sri Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.598 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504 and 120B IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Muzaffar Nagar is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial. Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the only role attributed to the applicant is hatching of conspiracy to the applicant Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. Taking into account the role attributed to the applicant and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Let the applicant-Gulzar, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:(i) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE/THEY SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES IS/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. (ii) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER/THEIR COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIS/HER/THEIR UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. (iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT/APPLICANTS FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIS/HER/THEIR, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. (iv) THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS IS/ARE DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL

¶28

COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIS/HER/THEIR IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶29

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT/APPLICANTS.

¶30

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant/applicants to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-: 1. The applicant/applicants shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is/are restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored. 2. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. 3. The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned. 4. 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.

¶31

Ahmad dated 31.8.2021

¶32

Heard Sri Nazrul Islam Jafri, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mrs. Nasira Adil, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the first informant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶33

It has been argued by learned Senior Counsel that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The first information report was lodged against eight named co-accused persons and that there was no such version that any other person was also involved in the incident. The applicant was not named in the first information report. It was submitted that after five days of incident, the involvement of applicant has been shown on the basis of statement of one Sahil but there is no such explanation that why he did not disclose this fact for six days. It was submitted that in fact by the statement of said Sahil, four persons including applicant were added as an accused in this case, whereas there was no such version in the first information report. It has been further submitted that applicant is a resident of Haryana and he has no motive at all to commit murder of deceased. It was also stated that the applicant is known to the first informant of the case and if applicant might have been involved in the incident in question, there are no reasons that why he must not have been named in the first information report. It was further submitted that no specific role has been attributed to applicant. Regarding criminal history of applicant, it was stated that applicant has previous criminal history of three cases, which has been duly explained in the affidavit. It was submitted that a case

¶34

under Gangster Act and another under Section 25 Arms Act have been imposed upon the applicant after this case. It was submitted that even gunshot injury was caused to the applicant while he was arrested. Lastly, it was submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.09.2020, having no criminal history and that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the first informant has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that eye-witness Sahil has named the applicant. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶35

Let the applicant Ahmad involved in Case Crime No. 598 of 2020 (Session Case No. 1247 of 2020), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 120-B IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffarnagar, be released on bail on furnishing each a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions: 1. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial. 2.The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. 3.The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. 4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶36

5.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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law. Manavvar dated 31.8.2021

¶37

Heard Sri Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vipul Kumar Singh, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has not committed the present offence. It is further argued that applicant is not named in the FIR. Name of the applicant surfaced in the statement of the witness Sahil during investigation. General role has been assigned against all the accused. It was further argued that co-accused Gulzar and Ahmad have been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court on 22.03.2021 and 27.08.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11727 of 2021 and 19155 of 2021. Recovery of scooty belonging to the deceased is shown against the applicant. Referring to the contents of the FIR it was further argued that informant claimed himself to be eye account

¶38

witness but he did not mention this fact that scooty belonging to the deceased was also taken away by the accused person. Thus, it was argued that recovery is false, planted and is not supported with the independent evidence. There is no evidence to connect the applicant with the present matter. He is languishing in jail since 04.09.2020 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail. Keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the fact that co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Manavvar� involved in Case Crime No. 598 of 2020, under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 1`20-B IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffar Nagar be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:

¶39

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. 2. The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶40

3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. 4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶41

5. 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. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶42

The party shall file self attested computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad. The concerned court/authority/official shall verify the authenticity of such computerised copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶43

Monu @ Suleman dated 30.7.2021

¶44

1. Heard Mohd. Aslam, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Abhishek Kumar Jaiswal holding brief of Amit Daga, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. 2. The applicant has approached this Court by way of filing the present Criminal Misc. Bail Application seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.598 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 120B I.P.C, Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Muzaffar Nagar after rejection of his Bail Application vide order dated 12.10.2020 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was

¶45

not named in the F.I.R. which was lodged against 8 named accused alleging that all the named accused fired on the informant, his brothers Sahil and Asif who died. Informant and Sahil ran away to save their lives. Name of the applicant was disclosed in the statement of witness namely Sahil and role of hatching conspiracy was attributed on the applicant. Similarly situated co-accused Gulzar has already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11727 of 2021 vide order dated 22.3.2021. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent and he is languishing in jail since 4.9.2020, there is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and the applicant undertakes that if enlarged on bail, he will never misuse his liberty and will co-operate in the trial. 4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant has not only participated in hatching conspiracy but scooty of the deceased was also recovered from him. Deceased had received seven fire arm entry wound and five fire arm exit wound.

¶46

5 (A). Law on bail is well settled that 'Bail is a rule and jail is an exception'. Bail should not be granted or rejected in a mechanical manner as it concerns liberty of a person. At the time of considering an application for bail, the Court must take into account certain factors such as existence of a prima facie case against the accused, gravity of the allegations, severity of punishment, position and status of the accused, likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the Courts as well as the criminal antecedents of the accused. (B). It is also well settled that the Court while considering an application for bail must not go into deep into merits of the matter such as question of credibility and reliability of prosecution witnesses which can only be tested during the trial. Even ground of parity is one of the above mentioned aspects which are essentially required to be considered.

¶47

(C). It is also well settled that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner, compassionately and not in whimsical manner. The Court should record the reasons which have weighed with the court for the exercise of its discretionary power for an order granting or rejecting bail. Conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.

¶48

(D). The Court while granting bail in the cases involving sexual offence against a woman should not mandate bail conditions, which is/are against the mandate of "fair justice" to victim such as to make any form of compromise or marriage with the accused etc. and shall take into consideration the directions passed by Supreme Court in Aparna Bhat and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 230, in this regard. 6. Considering the rival submission, material available on record, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial, absence of any convincing material to indicate the

¶49

possibility of tampering with the evidence, relevant factors mentioned above, particularly that the applicant has not participated in the occurrence. Role of hatching conspiracy was attributed on the applicant, name of the applicant was disclosed subsequently during investigation, similarly situated co-accused Gulzar has been granted bail. There was no independent witness to the alleged recovery of scooty which belonged to deceased from possession of the applicant, applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 4.9.2020, is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the applicant Monu Alias Suleman, involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:(i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶50

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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. (iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails 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 I.P.C. (v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant. 8. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison. 9. The bail application is allowed. 10. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad. 11.The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned. 12. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official

¶51

website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. 13. The observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail application. Nisar @ Pinnu @ Mulla Ji dated 4.1.2022

¶52

Heard Shri Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Indra Prakash Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Amit Daga, learned counsel assisted by Shri Vipul Kumar, learned counsel for the informant.

¶53

A first information report was lodged as Case Crime No.598 of 2020 at Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Muzaffarnagar under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120-B IPC. The bail application of the applicant was rejected by learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar on 23.07.2021. The applicant is in jail since 23.08.2020, pursuant to the said F.I.R. Shri Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant was not named in the F.I.R. Eight persons were named in the F.I.R. The informant claims to be an eye witness to the incident. The said eye witness made a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which the applicant was not named. Six days after the incident, another statement made by one Sahil on 29.08.2021 named the applicant along with five other persons. The unexplained delay in the said statement shows that the nomination of the applicant was an afterthought. Learned counsel for the applicant has explained the criminal history of the applicant and contends that the same has no bearing on the instant case. Learned counsel for the applicant claims congruency in role with co-accused person and seeks parity in relief granted to the said co-accused, namely, Manavvar, who has been granted bail by this Court on 31.08.2021 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.44787 of 2020. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner. Learned A.G.A as well as Shri Amit Daga, learned counsel assisted by Shri Vipul Kumar, learned counsel for the informant could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. However, they do not contest the criminal history of the applicant as disclosed in the bail application. However, learned AGA points out that the applicant has another criminal history of one case registered as Case Crime No.536 of 2017 under Sections 395 and 412 IPC, which has not been disclosed in the bail application.

¶54

Rejoining the issue, Shri Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has become a convenient scapegoat for the police authorities who repeatedly nominated him in various cases only to burnish their professional credentials. The said case does not depict any criminal trait and does not have any bearing on the instant case. 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.

¶55

I see merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and hold that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant-Nisar @ Pinnu @ Mulla Ji involved in Case Crime No.598 of 2020 at Police Station-Kotwali Nagar, District-Muzaffarnagar under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120-B IPC, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. 1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. 2. The applicant will not influence any witness. 3. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. 4. 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. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court"

¶56

Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in above mentioned case crime number. Allegations made in F.I.R. are false and concocted. Applicant is being falsely prosecuted in above mentioned case crime number. It is then contended that applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except to present one. Applicant is in jail since 19.12.2020. As such, he has undergone more than one year and two months of incarceration. He lastly submits that case of present applicant is identical and similar to co-accused Nisar @ Pinna and Ahmad. For the facts and reasons mentioned in the bail order of aforesaid co-accused, applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. There is no such distingushing feature on the basis of which case of present applicant can be distinguished from aforesaid co-accused so as to deny bail to present applicant. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with trial. It is lastly contended that charge sheet has already been submitted against applicant and the evidence sought to be relied upon by prosecution stands crystallized. As such, custodial arrest of applicant is not absolutely necessary during course of trial. On the aforesaid premise, it is urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶57

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that no indulgence be granted in his favour. Injured has received lacerated wound on his head which injury has been caused by hard and blunt object. As such, applicant is not liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶58

Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record as well as the complicity of applicant

¶59

and accusation made but without making any comment on the merits of the case, I find that applicant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed.

¶60

Let the applicant Irshad @ Ijhar , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on the furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶61

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.

¶62

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229A IPC.

¶63

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶64

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶65

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶66

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶67

Order Date :- 14.3.2022/Arshad

¶68

Digitally signed by ARSHAD MAHMOOD Date: 2022.03.16 16:52:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Irshad @ Ijhar v. State of U.P. though it Principal Secretary (Home)Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irshad @ Ijhar v. State of U.P. though it Principal Secretary (Home)Lucknow

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

Usman @ Teli Vs State of U.P. and Another

Firoz Pasa Vs State of U.P.

Vishram Nishad Vs State of U.P and Another

Farhan Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru Secretary Home Lknw. and 3 Others

Girish Agarwal @ Girish Kumar Goyal Vs State of U.P.