Allowed

Raju @ Aftab @ Rahmatullah @ Mujim Raien v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Nov 2023BAIL/38909/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application, the High Court allowed the applicant to be enlarged on bail in a trial for Section 392 IPC, granting release subject to a personal bond and sureties based on the practitioner's submissions regarding false implication and lack of risk of abscondence.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed; applicant released on personal bond and two sureties subject to appearing at trial, not tampering with evidence, and not pressuring witnesses.

Raju @ Aftab @ Rahmatullah @ Mujim Raien Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:212493

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38909 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Raju @ Aftab @ Rahmatullah @ Mujim Raien Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Shoeb Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Shamsh Tabrez Alam Ansari holding brief of Sri Mohd. Shoeb Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.987 of 2010, under Section 392 IPC, Police Station Barhalganj, District Gorakhpur, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant was not named in the FIR. His name has come into picture on the confessional statement of the co-accused persons. There is no independent witness of the alleged incident and no case property has been recovered from his possession. He further contends that there is criminal history of three cases against the applicant which has been explained in paragraph-20 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. There is no likelihood of his abscondence or tampering with the evidence. He is in jail since 25.03.2023. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

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

¶10

Having regard to the facts, circumstances and the submissions made but without commenting on merits of the case, this Court is of opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant - Raju @ Aftab @ Rahmatullah @ Mujim Raien , 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 the court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

¶12

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

¶13

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶14

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 2.11.2023

¶17

Shahroz

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raju @ Aftab @ Rahmatullah @ Mujim Raien v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju @ Aftab @ Rahmatullah @ Mujim Raien 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaihind Rajpoot Vs State of U.P.

Vikas @ Gaurav Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Shahnawaz Urf Pappu Vs State of U.P.

Mahin Alam Vs State of U.P.

Vindhyachal Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Sushil Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P.