The applicant sought bail for an alleged role in a violent protest involving brick-throwing. The High Court, finding no exceptional circumstances warranting denial under Article 21 and noting the co-accused were already on bail, allowed the bail application.
Released on bail on a personal bond and two sureties each in like amounts, subject to eight specific conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17771 of 2023
Applicant :- Rihan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Gurfan Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
Learned A.G.A. submits that instructions have been received and he has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the protest was being made against the police checking and the aforesaid protest turned violent and as a result of the same the bricks were thrown. It is submitted that although the applicant was arrested from the spot , however, there is no witness of the aforesaid incident. No incriminating articles have been recovered from the spot. The role are general in nature against 250-300 persons. The co-accused, Wasim, has already been enlarged on bail by order dated 13.2.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6611 of 2023 and the co-accused, Minhaj, has already been enlarged on bail by order dated 13.2.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6622 of 2023. The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 10.12.2022 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.
Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case.
Learned AGA has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.
It is not the case of the State that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court.
The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch
stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51 . Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.
No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.
It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.
Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Rihan involved in Case Crime No. 487 of 2022, under Sections 147, 149, 332, 336, 353, 307, 120-B, 186, 283, 341, 427 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Sections 2/3 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, Police Station Alapur, District Budaun be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-
when required.
5 . The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 20.4.2023 VMA
Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in the face of allegations of participating in a violent protest and throwing bricks.
Whether the applicant presents a flight risk or a threat to witness intimidation requiring denial of bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and anotherReferred¶11-12
Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51 · Who else cites this
Rihan
Vikram D. Chauhan
Vishwa Mohan Arora
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Vikram D. Chauhan and Vishwa Mohan Arora
Parties & counsel
