Allowed

Shoeab v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2022BAIL/52819/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail application of applicant Shoeab in a case under Sections 379, 411 IPC for theft. Relief granted based on parity with co-accused already on bail, delay in lodging FIR, and larger mandate of Article 21. Conditions imposed for bail release, breach of which attracts prosecution under IPC and CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail subject to personal bond and two sureties with conditions including cooperation in trial and absence from jurisdiction.

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

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52819 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shoeab Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kashi Naresh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶5

A copy of the bail order dated 15.11.2022, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 50290 of 2022, relating to coaccused Sadik, has been produced before the Court. It is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Kashi Naresh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajkumar Nishad, 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, Shoeab, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 422 of 2021, registered under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C., Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Aligarh, during pendency of trial.

¶8

There is allegation in the first information report dated 24.09.2021 lodged by informant, Rajiv Kumar, against unknown accused that on 24.09.2021 at about 6.30 a.m., he had gone to Naqvi Park for morning walk and had parked his scooter of grey colour Activa 4G bearing registration no. U.P. 81 BV 5313 at gate no. 3. When he returned from his walk, he could not find his scooty at the aforesaid place.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The first information report regarding the missing scooter of the informant was lodged after a delay of 12 hours of the incident. It is further submitted that the recovery as alleged to have been made from the possession of the applicant is false and planted and has been made approximately after one year of the date of occurrence. It is further submitted that identically circumstanced co-accused, namely, Sadik, has been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.11.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 50290 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 17.09.2022 and has no criminal history to his credit. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty.

¶10

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

¶11

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 identically circumstanced co-accused, Sadik, has been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court, 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.

¶12

The bail application, accordingly, stands allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant, Shoeab, 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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;

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 22.11.2022 Brijesh Maurya

¶23

Digitally signed by BRIJESH KUMAR Date: 2022.11.23 16:52:39 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shoeab v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shoeab 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohabbat Vs State of U.P.

Lalbabu Vs State of U.P.

Azam Khan Vs State of U.P.

Moharram Ali Vs State of U.P.

Anjali Dhan Vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Vs State of U.P.