Allowed

Afzal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2023BAIL/2161/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed Criminal Misc. Bail Application filed by the applicant seeking bail in a case under Sections 195, 120B, 34 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The court invoked bail grounds including lack of flight risk and cooperation with investigation, despite an objection regarding a pending separate case due to financial constraints.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in like amount, subject to conditions of not tampering with evidence and appearing in court.

Afzal Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2161 of 2023 Applicant :- Afzal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nandini Mishra,Ashish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Saleem Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶2

By means of the bail application, the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.973 of 2022 at Police Station-Nandgram, District-Ghaziabad under Sections 195, 120B, 34 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The applicant is in jail since 21.10.2022.

¶3

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 02.04.2021.

¶4

The following arguments made by Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned A.G.A.-I for the State as well as Shri Mohd. Saleem, learned counsel for the informant from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶5

(1). The applicant did not lodge a false case.

¶6

(2). The police authorities did not investigate the case registered as Case Crime No.962 of 2022.

¶7

(3). The police investigators have failed to record the statement of the applicant in the said case.

¶8

(4). The instant case has been lodged only to deflect attention from the deficiency in their investigations and their earlier case.

¶9

(5). The police authorities did not have any jurisdiction to register the criminal proceeding under Section 195 of the IPC.

¶10

(6). The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the above said cases.

¶11

(7). The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶12

However, learned AGA points out that the applicant has one more criminal case pending against them.

¶13

Rejoining the issue and relying on the instructions received by the learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is a financially destitute person, who is in jail. He does not have an effective pairokar. Hence details of the said case could not be searched out and stated earlier in the bail application. However, from the records available with the learned AGA and on the

¶14

basis of instructions obtained from the applicant, it is contended that the applicant is a convenient scapegoat for the police authorities to burnish the credentials of the police authorities. The said criminal case does not depict commission of any heinous crime by the applicant and has no bearing on the instant case.

¶15

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant-Afzal be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

¶18

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

Order Date :- 3.2.2023/Ashish Tripathi

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Afzal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afzal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sohail Khan Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sabir Khan Vs State of U.P.

Neeru Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Aftab Alam Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Vs State of U.P.