Allowed

Dablu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Mar 2022BAIL/44847/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant in a criminal case under Sections 323, 325, 326, 504, and 506 IPC. Relying on the principle of parity with similarly situated co-accused and Article 21, the Court held there was no material to indicate tampering with evidence and allowed the bail application subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond and two sureties, conditioned to appear on all dates and cooperate sincerely.

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

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44847 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Dablu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The applicant has moved the present bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No.155 of 2021 under Section 323, 325, 326, 504, 506 IPC P.S. Pakbada District Moradabad.

¶8

The prosecution case, in brief, is that an FIR was lodged by the complainant Javed Alam on 23.5.2021 against the applicant and his two brothers namely Shalara and Husnain showing the incident took place on 22.5.2021 at 8 p.m. for committing marpeet by them with the complainant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. No such incident as alleged by the complainant happens. Contention is that the complainant filed an application before the Police Station Pakbada District Moradabad, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, in which it has been stated that on 22.5.2021 at 8.00 p.m. when he was returning to his house, the applicant along with Murtaza and Mustalib stopped him and started abusing him regarding some monetary dispute and thereafter they had beaten him with lathi, danda and brick, due to which the complainant received injuries. It was further stated in the application that the name of the brothers of the applicant namely Shalara and Hasnain were wrongly given by him. They were not involved in the incident.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there is a cross version of the first information report. The applicant has also lodged a case bearing Case Crime No.154 of 2021 under Section 323, 324, 504 IPC against the complainant regarding incident of marpeet. The present cae is a counterblast to the said FIR.

¶11

Learned counsel further submits that the co-accused Murtaza whose name was taken by the complainant in his statement and who was having identical and similar allegations levelled against him, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 6.12.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.43653 of 2021. Another co-accused Mustalib was also granted bail by court below vide order dated 2.9.2021 in Bail Application No.2793 of 2021. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that common role has been assigned to all the accused persons including the applicant and no specific allegation of marpeet by any weapon has been assigned to the applicant. The other two co-accused persons who were assigned the same role have also been granted bail. The case of the applicant is not on the worse footing and he is also on similar footing with similar allegation than that of co-accused who have already been granted bail, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to get the benefit of parity and be enlarged on bail by this Court sympathetically.

¶12

Several other submissions regarding legality and illegality of the allegations made in the F.I.R. have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused, have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. The applicant undertakes that in case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is not having any criminal history and he is in jail since 13.8.2021 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the courts, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicant and also could not dispute the fact that similarly situated co-accused have already been granted bail.

¶14

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the Bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and considering the fact that similarly situated coaccused have already been granted bail and considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and

¶15

the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶16

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant, Dablu, involved in Case Crime No. 155 of 2021 under Section 323, 325, 326, 504, 506 IPC P.S. Pakbada District Moradabad, be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

¶18

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶19

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date fixed in the court below and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(5) 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.

¶23

(6) 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 sufficient 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.

¶24

(7) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶25

(8) The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶26

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

¶27

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 merit of the case.

¶28

Order Date :- 2.3.2022 SP

¶29

Digitally signed by SALIM PRAVEJ Date: 2022.03.10 14:13:14 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dablu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dablu 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

Kishan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Abdul Ahmed Vs State and Ors.

Prem Kumari Vs State of U.P.

Babli Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj @ Nanha Vs State of U.P.

Akash (Minor) Vs State of U.P.