Allowed

Faheem @ Faim v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2022BAIL/52658/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a kidnapping case (Section 363 IPC). The court relied on the delay in FIR, lack of witnesses, and medical report showing no injury. Bail was granted on personal bond and sureties with stringent undertakings regarding court appearance.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two local sureties, subject to conditions regarding court appearance and no adjournment requests.

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

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52658 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Faheem @ Faim Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ved Prakash Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Supplementary afÏdavit filed on behalf of the applicant in the Court today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Mr. Ved Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Amit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Faheem @ Faim a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Crime No. 413 of 2022, under Section 363 I.P.C. Police Station-Thakurdwara, District-Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

The present first information report has been lodged by the father of the victim on 29th August, 2022 at 01.20 hrs. against the applicant alleging therein that 28th August, 2022 at about 02.50 p.m., the applicant enticed away the victim from outside of his house. It is further alleged that he has made best effort to search the victim but he could not succeed.

¶9

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first information report has been lodged after about 23 hours delay for which no plausible explanation has been given, which makes the prosecution story doubtful. The applicant and the complainant/informant are residing in the same village and only due to village enmity and party bandi, he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the informant. The victim is alleged to have been recovered by the Police on 29th August, 2022 at 23.51 hrs. It is further stated that since the victim is dumb and is unable to speak about the incident, her statement has been recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. through Special Educator. There is contradiction in the first information report and the statement of the informant recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. There is no public or eye witness from which it is established that the applicant is involved in the commission of the alleged offence. As per the medical

¶10

examination report, no external injury has been found on the body of the victim nor anything wrong has been found on her body. The offence under Section 363 I.P.C. alleged against the applicant is triable by a Magistrate. The applicant is also mentally disturbed and his treatment is going on from 2018, in support of which various prescriptions have also been enclosed along with the supplementary afÏdavit. The applicant has no criminal antecedents 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 August, 2022.

¶11

Per contra learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but they could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

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:-

¶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 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(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

¶16

of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(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 sufÏcient 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.

¶18

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.

¶19

(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 22.11.2022

¶21

Sushil/-

¶22

Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.11.24 09:25:47 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Faheem @ Faim v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faheem @ Faim 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

Bachchan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Shubham Sonkar @ Chotu Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Gulzar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Kamran @ Chand Baboo Vs State of U.P.

Sazid and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Akbar Vs State of U.P.