Allowed

Fajalu Rahman v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC27 Mar 2023BAIL/3509/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail application for an applicant involved in kidnapping and abduction. Ruling based on parity of circumstances with a co-accused driver who had already been granted bail, despite the applicant being implicated under the U.P. Gangster Act without prior criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3509 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Fajalu Rahman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Buddhi Prakash,Ram Awadh Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri L.K.Ojha, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Awadh Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Amit Kumar Shukla, learned Brief Holder, for the State.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.179 of 2022, under Sections 364A and 34 IPC and Section 3(1) U.P.Gangester and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Bhadohi, District Bhadohi during pendency of the trial.

¶7

FIR of the present case was lodged on 6.7.2022 under Section 364 IPC against unknown persons. According to the FIR, unknown persons abducted the nephew of informant in Eartiga Car No. UP62CA6559.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that although applicant was not named in the FIR but on the basis of vehicle number provided in the FIR police intercepted the vehicle and it is alleged that applicant along with three others was apprehended and in the vehicle abducted Rizwan was also present. He further submits that from the perusal of the recovery memo it appears that co-accused Mohammad Rustam was also apprehended along with applicant and others and he was driving the vehicle and he has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 10.1.2023 passed in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 53975 of 2022 and the bail order of

¶9

Mohammad Rustam has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit filed in support of the present bail application.

¶10

He further submits that although it is alleged that from the possession of applicant one knife was recovered but except this fact the case of applicant is at par with co-accused Mohammad Rustam and after discussing entire material available on record, this Court granted bail to Mohammad Rustam, therefore, on the ground of parity applicant is also entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

He further submits that applicant was not having any previous criminal history but on the basis of the case in hand, he was implicated in the case under the provisions of U.P. Gangsters Act and applicant in the present matter is in jail since 31.8.2022.

¶12

Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant and other co-accused persons were apprehended along with abductee and from the possession of applicant knife was also recovered but both the learned counsels could not dispute the fact that co-accused Mohammad Rustam has already been released on bail by this Court and he was also apprehended along with applicant and abductee and he was the Driver of the vehicle and applicant is not having any previous criminal history.

¶13

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

¶14

Although as per allegation, applicant and others were apprehended while they were moving along with abductee in Eartiga Car No. UP62CA6559 but it appears from the record that co-accused Mohammad Rustam has already been released on bail by this Court and he was Driver of the said Car and he was also apprehended along with applicant and others including

¶15

abductee.

¶16

Applicant is not having any previous criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 31.8.2022.

¶17

Therefore, in my view, on the ground of parity applicant is also entitled to be released on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶19

Let the applicant- Fajalu Rahman be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 or any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and antisocial activity.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 27.3.2023 SKM

¶25

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

Fajalu Rahman v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fajalu Rahman 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

Anwar Alias Bhura Kasai Vs State of U.P.

Mohan Kumar Bind Vs State of U.P.

Badal Chaudhary @ Baba Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Ravi @ Ravindra Maurya Vs State of U.P.

Daya Kishan Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others