Allowed

Mohd. Sariq v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Nov 2022BAIL/40528/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40528 of 2022 allowed. Court granted bail to applicant Mohd. Sariq in a criminal case under various IPC sections, citing parity with released co-accused and Article 21 rights, imposing standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of attending trial, non-intimidation of witnesses, and no new criminal activity.

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

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40528 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Sariq Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vandana Mishra,Gyanendra Kumar Gyani,Sai Girdhar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Gaurav Kumar Chaturvedi

¶4

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sai Girdhar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Mohd. Sariq, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 309 of 2022, registered under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506, 455, 308, 354, 354 (Gha)1/34 I.P.C., Police Station- Nijamabad, District- Azamgarh, during pendency of trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. General allegation has been made against the applicant and co-accused, Tanveer @ Rustam, Alim and Gopu @ Salim regarding participation in the alleged crime. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. It is next submitted that co-accused persons, namely, Tanveer @ Rustam, Gopu @ Salim and Alim have been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 10.10.2022, 23.09.2022 and 19.10.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 44354 of 2022, 41690 of 2022 and 41085 of 2022 respectively. Copies of the said orders have been produced by the learned counsel for the applicant which are taken on record and the case of the applicant stands on identical footing and the applicant is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is languishing in jail since 02.08.2022 and has no criminal antecedents to his credit. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. However, he has not denied the submissions made on behalf of the applicant.

¶9

Considering the material/evidence brought on record, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, reformative theory of punishment, the fact that coaccused, Tanveer @ Rustam, Gopu @ Salim and Alim, have

¶10

already been enlarged on bail in similar circumstances as that of the applicant, larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , the Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶11

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant, Mohd. Sariq, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions :-

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶17

In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 10.11.2022 KS

¶21

Digitally signed by KISHAN SINHA Date: 2022.11.10 17:45:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Sariq v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Sariq 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

Sameer Vs State of U.P.

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Vinod @ Bintu and Another Vs State of U.P.

Indal Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Sartaj Vs State of U.P.