Allowed

Haseen @ Arman v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2023BAIL/36467/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail to the applicant in a criminal trial arising from a civil land dispute. The court noted the applicant had no criminal history, was confined for over three months, and no apprehension of tampering with evidence or delaying the trial was made.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties in like amount subject to appearance and non-interference with witnesses and evidence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:203137

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36467 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Haseen @ Arman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Venu Gopal,Ankit Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mukesh Joshi

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party and Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mukesh Joshi, learned counsel for the informant.

¶7

The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 389 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Qilla, District Bareilly during the pendency of the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant and the informant both are claiming rights upon the disputed land. The dispute is purely civil in nature. The father of the applicant had filed Civil Suit No. 512 of 2016 (Mohd. Tahir v. Kamran Afroz) for restraining the informant and others from interfering in the possession of the land by the applicant. Further, in the writ petition filed by the father of the applicant being Writ-B No. 17201 of 2017, Mohammad Tahir v. State of U.P. and others, an interim order of status quo has been granted by this Court vide order dated 11.09.2017. The proceedings are still pending before the courts. The applicant is in jail since 11.07.2023 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that dispute is purely civil in nature. The proceedings are pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bareilly and this Court. Further, the applicant

¶11

has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than three months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Haseen, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶13

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶14

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

¶15

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 17.10.2023 SKT/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SHIVA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Haseen @ Arman v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haseen @ Arman 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

Umesh Sharma@ Kariya Vs State of U.P.

Rizwan Vs State of U.P.

Kartik @ Vimal Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Kaptan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Satish Sahani Alias Naga Vs State of U.P.

Ram Ujagir Pandey Vs State of U.P.