Allowed

Amir @ Bhoora @ Amirsayed v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2022BAIL/57701/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to an applicant charged with theft. The court noted delays in filing the FIR, lack of arrest at the spot, and absence of incriminating material. Relying on precedent, the court released the applicant on a personal bond with two sureties and imposed strict conditions regarding court attendance.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount, subject to conditions regarding court attendance.

Amir @ Bhoora @ Amirsayed Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 59

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57701 of

¶3

2022

¶4

Applicant :- Amir @ Bhoora @ Amirsayed Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Joshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Mukesh Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Shravan Kumar Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material on record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Amir @ Bhoora @ Amirsayed with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 283 of 2022, under Sections 380 and 411 I.P.C., Police StationPakbada, District-Moradabad, during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

The prosecution case is that the informant is having export firm in the name and style of "Martco Exports" at Lodhipur Rajpoot, Moradabad. It is further alleged that on 21st September, 2022 at 03.00 a.m., few unknown miscreants had entered into the said factory/firm of the informant and stolen 32 pieces of plating Anod. Though there were guards deputed on the factory of the informant, but they were also no aware about the said theft.

¶9

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that for the alleged incident dated 21st September, 2022 at 03.00 a.m., the first information report has been lodged on 21st September, 2022 at 22.23 hrs. i.e. after 19 hours, when as matter of fact the distance between the factory of the informant and Police Station is only five kilometers which makes the prosecution case doubtful.

¶10

Neither the applicant has been named in the present first information report lodged nor he has been arrested from the spot nor anything incriminating material has been recovered from his possession or his pointing out. No test identification parade for identifying the applicant by the informant or any other public or independent witness, has been done by the Police in the present case.

¶11

It is further argued that after 10 days of the alleged incident, on the basis of information received from a Police informer, the Police arrested five persons including the applicant showing false recovery of Rs. 1350/- from the

¶12

applicant. It is on the basis of the confessional statement of the applicant after his arrest, he has been implicated in the present case, which as per Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act has no evidentiary value. The applicant has no previous 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 1st October, 2022.

¶13

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.

¶14

Considering 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:-

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)

¶22

Order Date :- 19.12.2022

¶23

Sushil/-

¶24

Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.12.20 09:09:54 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amir @ Bhoora @ Amirsayed v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amir @ Bhoora @ Amirsayed 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

Ajeet Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Anil Kumar Srivas Vs State of U.P.

Praveen Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Khalid Vs State of U.P.

Vakeel Vs State of U.P.

Rupendra @ Rupendra Rajpoot @ Rupendra Lodhi and Another Vs State of U.P.