Muinuddin Alias Jummu Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:169723

Court No. - 77

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37071 of 2023

Applicant :- Muinuddin Alias Jummu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Keshari Nandan Singh, Amit Daga Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Amit Daga assisted by Mr. Keshari Nanadan Singh, learned

¶7

counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present first bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 112 of 2023 under Sections 386, 504, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Maudaha, District Hamirpur with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to malafide intentions. Prosecution story as per the F.I.R. is that informant took Rs. 8 Lac on credit from Aftab Ahmad (Co-accused) for the purposes of business, in lieu of said amount Aftab Ahmad (co-accused) put informant under threats and took Rs. 39 Lac from him and also got the sale-deed of Gata Nos. 1572 and 1573 executed in his favour on gun point. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that the accused persons demanded ransom to the tune of Rs. 5 Lac and advanced life threats from co-accused and applicant. It is submitted that applicant along with his brother purchased a property by registered sale-deed (sale-deed annexed at Annexure No. 3). It is submitted that Civil Suit No. 230 of 2022 and Civil Suit

¶10

No. 07 of 2022 for permanent injunction is pending between the informant and brother of the applicant and the instant criminal case has been lodged against the applicant colouring civil dispute into criminal dispute. It is next submitted that apart from the civil suit, informant had also instituted another suit for cancellation of registered sale deed dated 05.12.2020, the said suit got registered and numbered as Original Suit No. 263 of 2022. It is further submitted that there is no money dispute between the applicant and informant. It is contended that applicant has some criminal history which is explained in paragraph No. 2 of the supplementary affidavit. It is next contended that five cases were time bound and they have come to an end due to efflux of time, four cases are registered in Gangster Act, in case crime No. 428 of 1999 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B I.P.C. the applicant has been enlarged on bail during the pendency of appeal and bail order is annexed as Annexure No. S.A.2, in case crime No. 116 of 1994 the applicant has been acquitted of the charges and copy of the order is annexed as Annexure No. S.A.1. It is further contended that in rest of the cases lodged against the applicant are simple cases which are triable by Magistrate. Applicant is languishing in jail since 24.04.2023 and if he is granted the liberty of bail he will not misuse the same and he is ready to furnish his sufficient sureties, bonds and personal bonds.

¶11

On the other hand, learned AGA for the State has opposed the prayer of bail and contended that the applicant has criminal history of 22 cases and he is a hardened criminal and if he is granted the liberty of bail will misuse the same and he may absond or tamper with the evidence.

¶12

I have heard the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and

¶13

perused the record.

¶14

It transpires from the record that 22 cases including a case under Section 302 I.P.C. is levelled against the applicant in which he has been convicted and thereafter enlarged on bail during the pendency of the appeal but criminal history alone cannot be the ground for rejection of bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the civil dispute is

¶15

pending between the parties, case is triable by Magistrate, applicant is languishing in jail since 24.04.2023 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, accused-applicant is liable to be released on bail.

¶16

Let applicant Muinuddin @ Jummu be released on bail in the above case crime number and on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶17

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

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to

¶20

secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶22

(v) The applicant shall also furnish an undertaking from the sureties that the properties (movable/immovable) which are the basis of accepting the surety, shall not be disposed of by them till the conclusion of trial.

¶23

(vi) The applicant shall also give an undertaking to the effect that he will not change his address without prior intimation to the trial court concerned.

¶24

(vii) The applicant shall appear before the second date of every month before the police station concerned failing which the present bail order shall stand automatically cancelled.

¶25

If the applicant is found involved in any other criminal case, the present bail order shall stand automatically cancelled and the court concerned shall be at liberty to take appropriate action against the applicant.

¶26

(Renu Agarwal,J.)

¶27

Order Date :- 23.8.2023

¶28

Karan

¶29

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

Muinuddin Alias Jummu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muinuddin Alias Jummu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Nath @ Munna Vs State of U.P.

Arun @ Surya Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Maurya Vs State of U.P.

Sumit @ Laifty Vs State of U.P.

Vishal Chandra Tripathi Vs State of U.P.