Allowed

Rehan @ Mohammad Ali v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2023BAIL/48359/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application for an accused alleged of robbery and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Finding no material indicating tampering with evidence or flight risk, the Court noted bail is the rule and jail the exception under Article 21. Bail was allowed on a personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions, including video conferencing availability.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on a personal bond and two sureties; standard conditions imposed; video conferencing permitted.

Rehan @ Mohammad Ali Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:229690

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 48359 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rehan @ Mohammad Ali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mirza Ali Zulfaqar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶7

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

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the First Information Report it is alleged that the applicant went to the shop of the informant who was a goldsmith jeweller and he ran away along with the ear rings. He was caught on the spot by the public and was beaten. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is in the business of selling stones and gems and he went to the shop of the informant for selling the aforesaid items and there was a dispute between the parties and as a result of the same the present First Information Report has been lodged. The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 1.10.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case.

¶10

Learned AGA for the State has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.

¶11

It is not the case of the State that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court.

¶12

The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51 . Learned AGA for the State has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶13

No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶14

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶15

Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties 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.

¶17

Let the applicant- Rehan @ Mohammad Ali involved in Case Crime No. 736 of 2023, under Sections 392 and 411 I.P.C., Police Station Shahpur, District Gorakhpur be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶18

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as

¶21

and when required.

¶22

iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶23

v. 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶25

vii. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

¶26

It is also provided that applicant may participate in the trial court proceedings through Video Conferencing facility in pursuance to the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, 2020.

¶27

In case, applicant participate in the trial court proceeding through Video Conferencing, the trial court shall permit him and make necessary arrangements for the same.

¶28

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

¶29

Order Date :- 4.12.2023 VMA

¶30

Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rehan @ Mohammad Ali v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rehan @ Mohammad Ali 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Junaid @ Nawab Vs State of U.P.

Munna Yadav @ Garjan Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.

Naveen Vs State of U.P.

Nasir Khan Vs State of U.P.

Akram Kuraishi Vs State of U.P.

Maneesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.