Allowed

Mazhar Husain v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2023BAIL/55979/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant Mazhar Husain in a case involving offences under IPC and POCSO Act, following the parity of co-accuseds and citing jail overcrowding, without resolving merits.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to verified sureties and standard conditions.

Mazhar Husain Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 55979 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mazhar Husain Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Prasad Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

The submission is that co-accuseds, Deepak and Asraf Ali, have already been enlarged on bail vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9036 and 20822 of 2022 on 25.7.2022 and 12.7.2022 and the case of the applicant stands on identical footing, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail for the reasons given in bail application of co-accused on the ground of parity. The applicant is in jail since 3.11.2022.

¶7

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials 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.

¶9

Let the applicant, Mazhar Husain, involved in Case Crime No. 3 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366A, 342, 376D(A) IPC, and section 5/6 POCSO Act Police Station- Bansi District- Siddharthnagar, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the

¶10

satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶11

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

¶12

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶13

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶14

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶15

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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.

¶17

Order Date :- 1.2.2023 Atul kr. sri.

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mazhar Husain v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mazhar Husain v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Devendra @ Jite Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Babloo Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Abid @ Jahid Vs State of U.P.

Kanchid Vs State of U.P.

Hinchhlal Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Jeenesh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others