Allowed

Firoz @ Golu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2023BAIL/59095/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by an applicant charged under Section 364 IPC. The court observed fatal flaws in the prosecution case, including delayed FIR registration, lack of physical evidence, and identification based solely on suspicion, permitting release on bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, with conditions not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 59095 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Firoz @ Golu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Bahadur Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manish Kumar Kesarwani

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

By means of the bail application, the applicant has prayed to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No.187 of 2022 at Police Station-Tharwai, DistrictPrayagraj under Section 364 IPC. The applicant is in jail since 31.08.2022.

¶6

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 29.11.2022.

¶7

The following arguments made by Shri Amar Bahadur Maurya, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Paritosh Kumar Malviya, learned A.G.A.-I for the State as well as Shri Manish Kumar Kesarwani, learned counsel for the informant from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶8

(1). The delay of almost 15 days in lodgment of the F.I.R. is fatal to the prosecution case.

¶9

(2). The victim disappeared on 15.06.2022.

¶10

(3). The missing report was registered by the first

¶11

informant on 17.06.2022.

¶12

(4). The applicant was not named in the aforesaid missing report. The informant later claimed that there was a dispute between the victim and the applicant.

¶13

(5). The brother of the victim in his statement before the police authorities had stated that the victim was last seen with the principal offenderBrijesh.

¶14

(6). The applicant was named on the foot of suspicion alone by the said witness.

¶15

(7). Suspicion howsoever strong is no substitute for evidence.

¶16

(8). Statement clearly implicates the applicant only belatedly as an afterthought. Failure to name the applicant in the F.I.R. despite knowledge of dispute between the victim and the applicant discredits the prosecution case.

¶17

(9). The applicant cooperated with the investigation. The charge-sheet has been filed in the case.

¶18

(10). No incriminating article has been recovered from the applicant.

¶19

(11). The applicant is not required for any further investigation.

¶20

(12). The other witnesses of last seen sighted the victim riding pillion on the motorcycle with the principal offender-Brijesh and not the applicant.

¶21

(13). The CDRs recovered by the police authorities cannot be linked with the crime.

¶22

(14). Prosecution evidence does not connect the applicant with the offence.

¶23

(15). The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the above said cases.

¶24

(16). The applicant is not a flight risk. The applicant being a law abiding citizen has always cooperated with the investigation and undertakes to cooperate with the court proceedings. There is no possibility of his influencing witnesses, tampering with the evidence or reoffending.

¶25

However, learned AGA points out that the applicant has one more criminal case under the Gangster Act pending against them.

¶26

Rejoining the issue and relying on the instructions received by the learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is a

¶27

financially destitute person, who is in jail. He does not have an effective pairokar. Hence details of the said case could not be searched out and stated earlier in the bail application. However, from the records available with the learned AGA and on the basis of instructions obtained from the applicant, it is contended that the applicant is a convenient scapegoat for the police authorities to burnish the credentials of the police authorities. The said criminal case does not depict commission of any heinous crime by the applicant and has no bearing on the instant case.

¶28

In the light of the preceding discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶29

Let the applicant-Firoz @ Golu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶30

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

¶31

(ii) The applicant will appear before the trial court

¶32

on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶33

Order Date :- 3.2.2023 Ashish Tripathi

¶34

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Firoz @ Golu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firoz @ Golu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sohail Khan Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sabir Khan Vs State of U.P.

Neeru Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Aftab Alam Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Vs State of U.P.