In a criminal bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for theft, the court granted bail noting the applicant was not named in the FIR, recovery lacked independent witnesses, and a co-accused had been granted bail.
Release of the applicants, Mohammad Umar, on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:235895
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49820 of 2023
Applicant :- Mohammad Umar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Salman Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
3.Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The alleged vehicle was not identified on the basis of the C.C.T.V. footage. Only on the information of an informer, the applicant along with the coaccused, Rajendra Pandey were arrested and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery has been shown from the joint possession of the applicant and the co-acused. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The recovered pea seeds cannot be connected with the offence. It is next contended that the identically placed co-accused, Rajendra Pandey, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 30.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 49851 of 2023. The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 09.10.2023, having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
for more than two months and 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.
i. the applicant shall not temper with the prosecution evidence;
ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness;
iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.
Order Date :- 13.12.2023 Sachin Mishra
Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a theft case where he was not named in the FIR and lack of independent witness to recovery.
Whether the applicant, having no criminal antecedents and facing no reasonable apprehension, should be released on bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohammad Umar
State of U.P.
Vivek Varma
Sachin Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
