Allowed

Mohd. Rais v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2022BAIL/38227/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant in a theft case. The Court noted the applicant was not named in the FIR and explained his criminal history without dispute. Citing jail overcrowding due to the pandemic, the Court held it a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed; applicant to be released on personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 92

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38227 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Rais Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh,Deepak Singh Patel,Mohd Shamim Khan,Prabhat Kumar Tiwari,Prince Kumar Srivastava,Satyendra Kumar Singh,Syed Mohammed Jafer Husain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Deepak Singh Patel, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Munne Lal, learned AGA for the State through virtual mode.

¶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. 18 of 2021, under Sections 457, 380, 411 I.P.C. registered at Police Station- Siddhartha Nagar, District- Siddhartha Nagar.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the court below, on 11.08.2021.

¶8

It is contended that the FIR has been lodged by one Sri Ravindra Nath Pandey, Advocage against unknown person before Police Station Siddhartha Nagar, District Siddhartha Nagar being FIR No. 0018 on 08.01.2021 at 11:26 hours u/s 457, 380 IPC with an allegation that on 07.01.2021 the informant received an information that his father-in-law is unwell and when he proceeded to the house of the father-in-law along with his family and he could not return back then on 08.01.2021 at 9 O’ clock in the morning, he came back and saw the gate was open and when he went inside the house, he observed that theft have taken place wherein after breaking the almirah, Rs. 1 lakh cash and jewellery and other valuable article were stolen. Learned counsel for the applicant has next argued that on the basis of tip of the informer four persons were arrested including the applicant wherein certain valuable articles were shown to have been found in possession of

¶9

the applicant. He next argued that he has been falsely been implicated in the present case as he has not committed any offence and further there was no independent witness of the said amount. In nutshell, the learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the entire recovery is planted one and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court towards certain paragraphs of the bail application as well as of the supplementary affidavit dated 26.11.2021 so as to contend that there are as many as 26 criminal cases pending against the applicant which are explained in a tabular form as under:-

¶10

Sl. No.	Case Crime No.	Sections (I.P.C.)	Bail Application No.	Order Date	Paragrap h no.	Annexed at page in suppleme ntary affidavit
1.	654/200 9 (Bailed out)	294	---------		4 of the supplem entary affidavit
2.	537/200 9	356, 411	---------		. ”
3.	566/2011	380, 411	19548/2011	02.08.2011	”	14
4.	18/2012	110G of Cr.P.C.	--------- (Proceedings dropped)		”
5.	453/201 3	379, 411	378/2014	18.07.2014	”	23
6.	606/201 4	379	----------		”
7.	402/201 5	392, 411	----------		”
8.	961(661)	392,	33343/2015	08.01.2016	”	15

¶11

¶12

	/2015	411
9.	142/201 8	357, 480	--------		”
10.	145/201 8	357, 480	--------		”
11.	150/201 8	379	1017/2018	12.11.2018	”	19
12.	198/201 8(2011)	379	--------		”
13.	246/201 8	457, 380	1047/2018	10.12.2018	”	21
14.	264/201 8	457, 380	--------		”
15.	274/201 8	41/411, 413, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471	7924/2019	25.02.2019	”	16
16.	276/201 8	3/25 Arms Act	---------		”
17.	358//201 8	3(1) U.P. Gangste r Act	12951/2019	22.05.2019	”	17
18.	59/2018	457, 380	---------		”
19.	111/2018	379, 411	---------		”
20.	201/202 0	457, 380	--------		”
21.	341/202 0	457, 380, 411	580/2021	01.07.2021	Paragrap h no. 11 of bail applicati on	Page-50 of bail applicati on

¶13

¶14

22.	2111/202 1	457, 380, 411	633/2021
23.	476/201 3	307	---------
24.	25/2021	457, 380, 411 (Post lodging of the FIR)	---------
25.	27/2021	8/20 N.D.P.S . Act	(pending before the High Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 31057/2021)
26.	91/2021	U.P. Gangste r Act (Post lodging of the FIR)	-----------

¶15

The learned counsel for the applicant has thus argued that the applicant is in jail since 13.01.2021.

¶16

Countering the said submission, learned AGA for the State has opposed the bail as he has argued that the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail as the applicant has shown to be in possession of the status of article and merely because according to the instruction received by him specifically at the point of criminal history he has explained correctly and the same cannot be a ground to grant him bail.

¶17

¶18

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 is not named in the FIR and further the applicant has explained the criminal history which has not been disputed in the instruction so obtained by the learned AGA 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. 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.

¶19

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

¶20

Let the applicant Mohd. Rais 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 :-

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(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.

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

Order Date :- 4.2.2022 Nisha

¶30

¶31

Digitally signed by NISHA KUMARI Date: 2022.02.09 13:40:44 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Rais v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Rais 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

Vikas Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar@ Raju Vs State of U.P.

Wahid Vs State of U.P through Its Secretary Home Up at Lucknow

Subhash Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Rahul @ Montu Vs State of U.P.