Allowed

Naved v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2023BAIL/51910/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant in a theft and mischief case, noting the delay in the FIR, lack of independent witnesses to the recovery, and the absence of criminal history, while ordering him to furnish a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to appearing in court and not tampering with evidence or witnesses.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:236918

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51910 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Naved Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Subodh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Dinesh Tiwari, 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.796 of 2023, under Sections 379, 411 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The incident is alleged to have occurred on 19.09.2023 at 12.00 noon and the first information report was lodged on 20.09.2023 at 00.57 a.m. The delay in the facts of the present case is fatal to the prosecution case. On the basis of information furnished by the informer, the applicant along with another co-accused were arrested on 20.09.2023. False recovery of Rs. one lakh has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Except, the confessional statement of the applicant in police custody, there is no cogent evidence to link the applicant with the offence. The applicant is in jail since 20.09.2023 having no criminal history 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 the applicant was not named in the first information report. There is no independent witness to the recovery. Except, the confessional statement of the applicant in police custody, at this stage, there is no substantive evidence against him. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Further, the applicant has remained confined for almost three 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

¶11

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 Naved, 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 :- 14.12.2023 Lbm/-

¶18

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

Naved v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naved 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Sao Vs State of U.P.

Mo. Miyan Alias Raja Vs State of U.P.

Sunita Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Vivek Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Lucky Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Chhote Vs State of U.P.