Allowed

Haseen v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2022BAIL/55089/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted bail to Haseen in criminal proceedings for offenses under the IPC and JJ Act, subject to sureties and specific conditions regarding attendance and conduct in court, relying on precedent.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties of like amount, subject to four specific conditions of conduct and attendance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55089 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Haseen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Kalim,Abrar Ahmad Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Mohd. Kalim and Mr. Abrar Ahmad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Amit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the material on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Haseen with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 118 of 2022, under Sections 143,144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 153A, 153B, 295A, 201, 511, 307, 332, 333, 353, 395, 435, 436, 427, 504, 505 (2), 506, 120B I.P.C., Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Section 83 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act and also under Section 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, Police Station Khuldabad, Distirct Prayagraj (Allahabad), during the pendency of the trial.

¶7

As per first information report, the accused persons have pelted stones on vehicles and set the vehicles on fire and caused damage to the public property and tried to loot the arms of the army personnel.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime due to ulterior motive. He further submits that no evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer for section 436 I.P.C. and no building, place of worship etc. was destroyed by fire. He further submits that no statement and name was entered in the case-diary as to whose weapons were plunder or attempted to be plunder. He further submits that all the injuries are simple and caused by hard and blunt objects. It is further submitted that the co-accused, namely, Mohd. Quadir and Mohd. Shahid have already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 20th September, 2022 and 21st September, 2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 40144 of 2022 and 42194 of 2022 respectively. The case of the present applicant is similar and identical to that of the aforesaid co-accused. As such the present applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. The applicant has no criminal history. 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 10th June, 2022.

¶9

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but he could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Considering the the nature of the offence, 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:-

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 3.12.2022

¶18

Sushil/-

¶19

Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.12.06 09:16:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Haseen v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haseen 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

Dharmendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ashwani Singh Vs State of U.P.

Dilip Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Nadeem Vs State of U.P.

Tehseem Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Rajput @ Happy Vs State of U.P.