Allowed

Mohd. Faiz v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2022BAIL/48621/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court No. 50 in Allahabad High Court granted bail to Mohd. Faiz, an undertrial prisoner in a criminal case involving multiple serious offences under IPC and special enactments. The court considered co-accused release on bail and lack of immediate flight risk, imposing strict conditions on attendance and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

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

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48621 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Faiz Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mumtaz Ahmad Siddiqui,Mohd.Sartaz Ahmad Siddiqui,Syed Mohammed Jafer Husain

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 118 of 2022, under Sections143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 153A, 153B, 295A, 201, 511, 307, 332, 333, 353, 395, 435, 436, 427, 504,505(2), 506, 120B, IPC, under section 3/4/5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908, under section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, under section 83 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and under section 3/4 of Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station- Khuldabad, District - Prayagraj.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. It is submitted that the applicant was neither present at the spot of occurrence nor he was arrested from there. Co-accused Mohd. Shahid and Iftikhar Alam, who are named in the FIR and coaccused Imran Ansari, who is not named in the FIR, have already been enlarged on bail by order of Co-ordinate Benches of this Court and bail orders are annexed with the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. A criminal history of two cases has been attributed to the credit of applicant, which has been duly explained by him in paragraph No.12 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. Learned A.G.A. has also pointed out two criminal cases i.e. Case Crime No. 215 of 2020, under Sections 4/5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908, P.S. Kareli, District Prayagaraj and Case Crime No. 0363 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kareli, District Prayagraj, against the applicant whereas counsel for the applicant submitted that the named accused Faiz in these FIRs are in fact some other person, as neither name nor the parentage of present applicant is matched with the accused persons, who

¶9

are named in these FIRs. It is further stated that neither any weapon of crime nor any incriminating substance/ material has been recovered from the possession of the applicant It is also submitted that there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, he may flee from the course of law or may, otherwise, misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant is in jail since 11.6.2022 and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is very bleak.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail, but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant that co-accused has already been released on bail.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶12

Let applicant namely Mohd. Faiz be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime Number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(iii) In case, the applicant misuse 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 fail 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.

¶16

(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

¶17

be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶18

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶19

Order Date :- 9.11.2022 Kamarjahan

¶20

Digitally signed by KAMARJAHAN ANSARI Date: 2022.11.10 18:37:54 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Faiz v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Faiz 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

Chhatra Pal Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Jwala Singh Vs State of U.P.

Nizam Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Sirajuddin Vs State of U.P.

Munni Lal Vs State of U.P.