Irfan Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 58

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44341 of 2022

Applicant :- Irfan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Joshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant-Irfan with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Crime No. 247 of 2015, under Sections 413, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police StationGalshaheed, District-Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶7

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present first information report lodged by the informant in collusion of the Police is nothing but a bundle of lie and the same has been lodged only for exploiting the applicant by indulging his name in a fake, false and frivolous case. The entire prosecution story as unfolded in the first information report is absolutely a self-made story projected by the informant with the help of Police. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant has no concern with the alleged offence. The recovery of a tempo, one country-made pistol shown against the applicant is planted one by the Police. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. Till date the tempo, which is alleged to haven been recovered from the applicant has not been gotten connected to any case. It is also submitted that all the offence levelled against the applicant are triable by a Magistrate. It is lastly submitted that the co-accused Shahid, Shahrukh, Yusuf, Ikram, Susheel @ Suneel @ Pauva and Devendra Kumar Ruhela have been enlarged on bail by this Court, copies of their bail orders have been enclosed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit accompanying the present bail application. The case of the present applicant is more or less identical to that of the aforesaid co-accused. As such the present applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail. The applicant has no previous criminal antecedent to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 29th November, 2015. As such the applicant has undergone more than six years and 10 months of incarceration.

¶8

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but he could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Considering the nature of the offence, provision for initiation of cases and release the accused, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶10

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶11

(ii) 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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial 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.

¶13

(iv) 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 absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶14

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶15

(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 14.10.2022 Sushil/-

¶17

Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.10.18 09:34:07 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?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Mudassir @ Guddu Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Nadeem Vs State of U.P.

Rin Kumar @ Manglu @ Tunda Vs State of U.P.

Manish Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Hari Ram Kashyap Vs State of U.P.

Veerendra Mishra Vs State of U.P.