Allowed

Mohd. Sufiyan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2022BAIL/50162/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant, Mohd. Sufiyan, involved in a crime under various IPC sections. Relying on parity with co-accused and Article 21, the Court fixed conditions including ensuring presence in court and forbidding tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions of presence and conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50162 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Sufiyan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Sharma,Abhishek Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶5

Copy of the order dated 04.11.2022 relating to the criminal history of the applicant passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 47684 of 2022 in which the applicant has been granted bail, has been produced by the learned counsel for the applicant in the Court today which is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashish Malhotra, learned brief holder for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Mohd. Sufiyan, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 43 of 2022, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 153, 153-A, 307, 323, 336, 504, 506, 109, 34, 327, 427 I.P.C., Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station- Bekanganj, DistrictKanpur Nagar East (Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar), during pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is next submitted that the applicant is neither named in the first information report nor he was arrested on the spot. There is no picture or video clip which may show that the alleged crime has been committed by the applicant at the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that identically circumstanced co-accused persons, namely, Mohammad Amir, Ajeem @ Ajeem Shukla and Abdul Rahman have been enlarged on bail by coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 18.08.2022, 29.08.2022 and 05.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 32584 of 2022, 31894 of 2022 and 37407 of 2022 respectively. 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 04.06.2022 and has no previous criminal history to his credit. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty.

¶9

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,

¶10

he does not deserve any indulgence. However, he could not deny the submissions made on behalf of the applicant.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has also pointed out that the applicant has criminal antecedents of two cases, namely, (i) Case Crime No. 42 of 2022, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 153, 307, 323, 332, 333, 336, 353, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C., Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station- Bekanganj, District- Kanpur Nagar and (ii) Case Crime No. 44 of 2022, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 153, 307, 323, 336, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, Police Station- Bekanganj, District- Kanpur Nagar.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the aforesaid cases have been registered against the applicant after implication of the applicant in the present case wherein the applicant is on bail.

¶13

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, the fact that co-accused persons, Mohammad Amir, Ajeem @ Ajeem Shukla and Abdul Rahman, have 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.

¶14

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant, Mohd. Sufiyan, 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 :-

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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;

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 15.11.2022 KS

¶24

Digitally signed by KISHAN SINHA Date: 2022.11.16 10:35:31 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Sufiyan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Sufiyan 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

Raheem Vs State of U.P.

Salman Vs State of U.P.

Bablu Alias Sirazuddin Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Nafis Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Bala Devi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Mohd. Sufiyan Vs State of U.P.