Allowed

Iqbal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Jun 2023BAIL/25522/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to the applicant in a criminal trial involving sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 352, 323, 504, 507 IPC and 307 IPC added during investigation, noting the injury was not dangerous to life and parity existed as co-accused had been released.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount subject to specific conditions of surrender, appearance, and non-harassment.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:127752

¶2

Court No. - 49

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25522 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Iqbal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Randhir Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Randhir Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.S. Tiwari, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Iqbal seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 56 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 352, 323, 504, 507, 307 I.P.C., registered at P.S. Ramala, District Baghpat.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the F.I.R. was initially lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 352,323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and subsequently during investigation Section 307 I.P.C. was added. It is argued that although the applicant is named in the F.I.R. along with six other co-accused persons and three persons are alleged to have received injuries but the injuries as sustained by the alleged injured persons except Rohtas, were found to be simple in nature whereas Rohtas was found to have received fracture of ulna bone of right forearm. It is argued that the said injury is not dangerous to life. It is further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para-20 of the affidavit and is in jail since 18.5.2023. It is argued that identically placed co-accused Prakash, Hariom and Bhupendra have been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.4.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 17146 of 2023 and as thus parity is also claimed.

¶9

Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for bail but could dispute the arguments as aforesaid.

¶10

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that general and common role has been assigned to the applicant along with the other co-

¶11

accused persons of assault. The injuries received by the injured persons were not opined to be dangerous to life. The co-accused Prakash, Hariom and Bhupendra have been granted bail.

¶12

Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence and the fact that three co-accused persons have been granted bail, this Court is of the view that the applicant may also be enlarged on bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Iqbal 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 concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

¶15

ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶17

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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., may be issued and if 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 I.P.C.

¶18

(V) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶19

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.

¶20

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶21

The bail application is allowed.

¶22

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 21.6.2023 Naresh

¶24

Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Iqbal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iqbal 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

Bilal Vs State of U.P.

Nijamuddin Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Niraj Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sabir Khan Vs State of U.P.

Prem Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Osama Vs State of U.P.