Allowed

Mohd Majid @ Majid v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2022BAIL/36440/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application, the court considered arguments for release on personal bonds and sureties. Balancing the nature of the offense and precautionary measures, the court allowed bail for the applicant subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions including no tampering with witnesses and cooperation in trial.

Mohd Majid @ Majid Vs State of U.P. — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36440 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd Majid @ Majid Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Radha Mohan Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sadaful Islam Jafri

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit has been filed today in the Court, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Radha Mohan Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sadaful Islam Jafri, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Ram Adhar Ram, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 554 of 2022, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 352, 323, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Allegation in the first information report is that six named persons including the applicant and some unknown persons entered in the house of the informant and attacked upon informant's son with intention to kill him with lathi-danda and country made pistol, hence the present FIR.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Injuries found on the person were not dangerous and were not fatal to life. No fire arm injury has been received by the injured. General role has been assigned to all the accused persons. He further submitted that co-accused Shahrukh has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.08.2022. Applicant's case is similar to the co-accused, who has been granted bail, hence, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of same footing. The applicant is languishing in jail since 17.06.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and co-operate in trial.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. as well as informant's counsel Sri Sadaful Islam Jafri have vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant and submitted that applicant is involved in the present

¶11

case and direct evidences are against him. Applicant's case is different from the case of co-accused, who has been granted bail. Police has also lodged separate FIR against the applicant under Section 4/25 of Arms Act on the date of occurrence of offence of the present case, hence, applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶12

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another , S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 , the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant, Mohd. Majid @ Majid, who is involved in the aforesaid case 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 7.12.2022 Nitin Verma

¶19

Digitally signed by NITIN KUMAR VERMA Date: 2022.12.08 16:09:18 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd Majid @ Majid v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Majid @ Majid 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Somil Vs State of U.P.

Kandha Singh Alias Ajay Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shakeel Khan Vs State of U.P.

Dushyant Kumar Vs State of Up through Secretary Home

Sushma Vs State of U.P.

Shobhit Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others