Intezar Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:208769

Court No. - 74

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44908 of 2023

Applicant :- Intezar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Aslam Khan,Mohd. Mateen Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 252 of 2023, under Sections 394, 307, 411 IPC, Police Station Kairana, District Shamli, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. As per the allegations in the first information report, four persons including the applicant are alleged to have assaulted Vinod and Pankaj. As per the medical report of two injured, Pankaj received nine injuries. In the opinion of doctor the said injuries are simple in nature, whereas injured Vinod received three injuries. The injury no.1 was referred for CT Scan. As per the CT Scan head "fracture of frontal bone was seen on the right side". In the statement of two injured, a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. It is further contended that the applicant has not been nominated as the offender, who caused injury on the head of Vinod. It is next contended that there is a cross version of the incident, the co-accused Munawwar has also received injuries. The aggressor is still to be ascertained. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in paragraphs 15 to 19 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 24.08.2023 and in case he 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 heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the offender, who caused injury on the head of injured Vinod. There is cross version of the incident. At present there is no clarity with regard to the role of the

¶11

applicant. Further, the applicant has remained confined for more than two months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when 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, 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 Intezar , 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:

¶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 :- 1.11.2023 Lbm/-

¶18

Digitally signed by :- LAL BAHADUR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Intezar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Intezar 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 Vs State of U.P.

Chanchal Mishra Alias Ratnesh Vs State of U.P.

Shivendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Suresh Vs State of U.P.

Faheem Vs State of U.P.

Faster Abhishek Kumar Vs State of U.P.