Allowed

Haider Raini v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 May 2023BAIL/24271/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24271 of 2021, the Allahabad High Court allowed the bail plea of Haider Raini. Citing Union of India vs K.A. Najeeb regarding speedy trial, the Court held that after nearly two years of incarceration, the applicant made out a case for bail, releasing him on personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24271 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Haider Raini Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vishal Jaiswal,Akhilesh Kumar,Irshad Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Ibrar Khan

¶4

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶5

Third supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant in the Court today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ibrar Khan, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 161 of 2021, under sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Jamaniya, districtGhazipur with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He next submits that the prosecutrix was major at the time of incident and she was having love affairs with the applicant. Neither applicant has enticed away the prosecutrix nor he established physical relations with her. Her medical report does not indicate any marks of violence, injury or sexual assault. He also submits that during trial statements of mother of the prosecutrix (PW2) and the informant (PW1) were recorded, in which they have not supported the prosecution case. The prosecutrix in her statement has specifically stated that on the instigation of her father she had given false statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. before Magistrate and denied the allegation of prosecution version. It is further submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 27.5.2021 having no criminal history and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶9

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submitted that the prosecutrix in both her statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. have fully supported the prosecution case, hence he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶10

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶11

In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-

¶12

"15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India SCC para-15 it was held that under trials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

¶13

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, period of incarceration and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on 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.

¶14

Let the applicant Haidar Raini in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶15

(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.

¶16

(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶17

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

¶18

(4). 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.

¶20

Order Date :- 26.5.2023 Faridul

¶21

Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Haider Raini v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haider Raini 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

Gavendra Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Dularey Vs State of U.P.

Praveen Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Mujiburrehaman Vs State of U.P.

Ramveer Singh Vs State of U.P.