Majid v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
Court allowed bail application under sections 394, 411, 34 IPC. Applicant claimed parity with coaccused; State opposed citing criminal history but failed to show risk of tampering. Court held bail is rule and jail is exception.
What did the court decide?
Applicant released on bail conditioned to furnish sureties and comply with stipulations regarding witness intimidation, evidence tampering, appearance before trial, and travel permissions.
What the court decided
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:185578
Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18222 of 2023
Applicant :- Majid Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mithilesh Kumar Ojha 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 coaccused Shane Alam has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 10.01.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45945 of 2022. He submits that applicant is seeking parity in respect of the same. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraph no.2 of supplementary affidavit. Applicant is languishing in jail since 28.08.2022 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 the parity.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant considering his criminal antecedents but lack of material regarding tampering or intimidation.
Whether the applicant is entitled to parity in bail grant considering coaccused was already released.
Whether exceptional circumstances exist to deny bail based on criminal history under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Majid
Coram
Vikram D. Chauhan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · September
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/18222/2023
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court