Allowed

Irfan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2022BAIL/38577/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application allowed. The High Court granted bail to the applicant who was accused in a case involving fight, riot, and attempt to murder. The court found it a fit case for bail due to general role assignment, lack of criminal history, and jail overcrowding concerns during the pandemic.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38577 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Irfan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vishal Agarwal,Anshika Agarwal,Haya Rizvi,Sanjay Vikram Singh,Vishal Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sudhanshu Pandey,Vikram Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Vishal Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant and Mr. Shravan Kumar Ojha, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State.

¶6

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been moved on behalf of applicant- Irfan, son of Bhole Khan, for enlarging him on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 199 of 2021, under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307, 452 IPC, police station Sasni, district Hathras.

¶7

The bail application, so preferred by the applicant for enlarging him on bail, has been rejected by the court below on 05.08.2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that first information report has been lodged by one Chandra Bhan Singh, son of Rampal Singh before the police station Sasni Kotwali, district Hathras in the above-noted sections on 12.07.2021 at 17.21 hours relatable to commission of offence dated 11.07.2021 at 20.00 hours against the applicant and seven other co-accused. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that as per the allegations contained in the first information report, the complainant's younger brother being Dharmendra had gone to the market on 10.07.2021 for selling millet. However, at that point of time, the applicant along with Jahid and Shahid, who bore enmity and animosity with the complainant with regard to elections assembled therein and obstructed the way and hurled abuses while administering threat that they would harm him as the complainant's side was instrumental in creating the situation whereby the candidate of the accused lost elections. Further, as per the allegations contained in the first information report lodged on 11.07.2021 at 8 O'clock, the elder brother of the complainant being

¶9

Gajendra Singh and Mool Chandra were sitting in the pavement of their house and at that point of time, the applicant along with other seven accused came at there and started creating ruckus and in the meantime, one of the co-accused being Ravi Khan resorted to gun shot firing, pursuant thereto Gajendra Singh has received gun shot injuries and thereafter, bystanders and wellwishers of the complainant's side also came there and they were administered beating, pursuant thereto, they also received injuries. Learned counsel for the applicant has thus sought to argue that only general role has been sought to be assigned and no specific role has been assigned and even otherwise from the narration as contained in the F.I.R., the role with regard to resorting to gun shot firing and extending injuries was upon Ravi Khan and not upon the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court towards paragraph No. 25 of the bail application so as to contend that the applicant does not possess criminal history. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the applicant is unnecessarily languishing in jail since 13.07.2021. If the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail, he be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Countering the said submission, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for bail while arguing that the applicant has committed offence and that is why his name stood placed in the first information report and merely because co-accused Ravi Khan has resorted to gun shot injuries will not be a ground to hold the applicant innocent, particularly in view of the fact that predetermine mind and with a common object, they assembled therein. However, learned A.G.A. could not dispute the fact that the applicant does not possess criminal history.

¶11

Mr. Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the complainant has adopted the argument of learned A.G.A. However, he has additionally argued that merely because co-accused Ravi Khan has been assigned the role of gun shot injuiry to the injured, will not be a relevant factor germane for holding the applicant guilty, particularly in view of the fact that the applicant herein was instrumental in commission of offence and rather he along with other co-accused had administered blows, pursuant thereto other were injured.

¶12

Be that as it may be, considering the submissions on the question of bail, prima facie, this Court finds that this is a fit case for bail as general role has been assigned to the applicant with regard to offence and in particular as per the version contained in the F.I.R., co-accused Ravi Khan resorted to gun shot firing and the applicant has explained the criminal history.

¶13

Further, the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.07.2021 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, this is a fit case for grant of bail.

¶14

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 application on behalf of accused person.

¶15

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

¶16

Let the applicant Irfan, son of Bhole Khan, 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 :-

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

Order Date :- 5.3.2022 Sazia

¶26

Digitally signed by SAZIA AQUIL Date: 2022.03.09 10:40:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Irfan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irfan 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

Sharad Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Kapil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Neeraj Vs State of U.P.

Akshay @ Monti Vs State of U.P.

Amir Khan Vs State of U.P.

Pravesh Singh Alias Yogesh Chand Vs State of U.P.