Mohd. Farman Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:203272

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43526 of 2023

Applicant :- Mohd. Farman Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. has informed that notice has been served upon the opposite party no.2 but no one appears on his behalf.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Mohd. Farman, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 231 of 2023, under Sections 363,366,376,504,506 IPC and section 3/4 POCSO Act Police Station Ramgarh, DistrictFirozabad, during pendency of trial.

¶9

There are allegations against the applicant of abduction of minor girl, commission of offence of rape, criminal intimidation and penetrative sexual assault. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that victim has falsely implicated the applicant.From the C.D.R. details of the mobile phone of the applicant, the investigating ofÏcer has found that location of the applicant is not found at the place of the incident rather victim came to the location of the applicant on her freewill.Applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Medical report does not supports the prosecution case.Victim has herself claimed her age is 18 years.The applicant is in jail since 2.6.2023 and has no criminal history.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶11

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the

¶12

learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India; considering the dictum of Apex Court in the recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 ; considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed

¶13

Let the applicant 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 following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶14

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶15

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶16

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶17

That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any 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 to any police ofÏcer;

¶18

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are

¶19

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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶20

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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

Order Date :- 19.10.2023

¶23

Atul kr. sri.

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Farman v. State of U.P.and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Farman v. State of U.P.and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Singh Vs State of U.P.

Manurai @ Mandeep Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rishipal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Vs State of U.P.

Aslam Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Suman Vs State of U.P.