Allowed

Waseem v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2023BAIL/50626/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application allowed. The Court held that the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception applies, as the State failed to show any exceptional circumstances, criminal history, or risk that the applicant would tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Waseem released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions.

Waseem Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:232652

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50626 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Waseem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Faisal Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sharad Kumar Srivastava

¶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 in the present case, co-accused-Akil has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 20.11.2023 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 49265 of 2023. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has no previous criminal history. Applicant claims parity with the aforesaid co-accused. Applicant is languishing in jail since 12.10.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the bail application, however, do not dispute the parity.

¶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

¶13

(10) SCC 51 . Learned AGA for the State has not shown any

¶14

exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Let the applicant Waseem involved in Case Crime No. 270 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452, 504, 506, 323 IPC, Police Station Jansath, District Muzaffar Nagar, 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:-

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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 and when required.

¶23

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

¶24

of which he is suspected.

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial court proceedings, expeditiously without giving unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties and shall make an endeavor to conclude the trial within two years from the date of filing of production of certified copy of this order.

¶29

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

¶30

Order Date :- 8.12.2023

¶31

S.Prakash

¶32

Digitally signed by :- SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Waseem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Waseem 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gudiya Devi Vs State of U.P.

Ukewe Cyprian Vs State of U.P.

Ghanshyam Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Firoz Vs State of U.P.

Ravi Vs State of U.P.

Rajaram and Another Vs State of U.P.