The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Mohd. Haider accused in a case involving general allegations against multiple accused persons and the cause being a large-scale riot or affray.
Release of applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 39553 of 2022
Applicant :- Mohd. Haider Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- K.C. Mishra,Mohd. Mobin Ansari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with the ulterior motive. It is further submitted that general allegation has been levelled against all the accused and no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant. It is further submitted that co-accused Mohd. Najeem has been granted bail by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 43554 of 2022 vide order dated 20.10.2022. It is also submitted that most of the accused have been granted bail. Claiming parity, pleading false implication it is contended that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 11.6.2022 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 A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.
It appears from the perusal of record that the accused is not named in the F.I.R. whereas the F.I.R. has been lodged against 70 known accused and about 5000 unknown accused persons. Simple injuries have been caused to the injured persons. General role has been assigned to all the accused persons. On similar footing, co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court. Grounds taken in the bail application are sufficient. Hence, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 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 Mohd. Haider involved in Case Crime No.118 of 2022, under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 153A, 153B, 295A, 201, 511, 307, 332, 333, 353, 395, 435, 436, 427,
504, 505(2), 506, 120B I.P.C., Section 4/5 of Explosive Substance Act, Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Section 83 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station Khuldabad, District Prayagraj 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. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Submission and observation recorded in the matter are only for the purpose of deciding the bail application. Trial court shall not be influenced in any way with the said observation / submission while deciding the trial.
Order Date :- 2.12.2022 ss
Digitally signed by SANDEEP SHARMA Date: 2022.12.05 17:43:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant has made out a prima facie case for bail given the nature of the offence and available evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and anotherReferred¶8
Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22 · Who else cites this
Mohd. Haider
State of U.P.
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
Parties & counsel
