Criminal Misc. Bail Application filed by Layak Ali. High Court allowed bail considering cross-version in FIRs, clean antecedents, and lack of incriminating circumstances necessitating custody despite prosecution relying on crystallized evidence.
Released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount under specified 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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:166685
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 32565 of 2023
Applicant :- Layak Ali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atmaram Nadiwal,Dinesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Neesha, Ali Hussain, Sazzad and Akram sustained injuries. The Medico Legal Reports are on record from page 29 onwards. However, one of the injured namely Sazzad ultimately succumbed to the injuries sustained by him on 29.03.2023. Accordingly, the case was converted under Section 304 I.P.C.
of trial. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one.Applicant is in custody since 20.03.2023. As such, he has under-gone almost five months of incarceration. He therefore contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.
aggressor at this stage and therefore, the same is subject to trial evidence, the police report (charge-sheet) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted, therefore the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallised but in spite of above the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for first informant could not point out any such circumstance from record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgement of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373 (Paragraph 5) , the clean antecedents of applicant, the period of incarceration undergone by applicant and but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail
(i) Applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence.
(ii) 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.
(iii) Applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
(iv) Applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.
conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant and send him to prison. Order Date :- 18.8.2023 YK
Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail considering the nature of offences, injury to witnesses, and clean antecedents.
Whether there are any circumstances necessitating custodial arrest pending trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶19
Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 373
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Layak Ali
State of U.P.
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
