Allowed

Irfan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2023BAIL/8153/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a second bail application filed by Irfan. The court found a case made out based on parity arguments, lack of direct allegations, and no criminal history, granting bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to six standard conditions to prevent tampering and ensure trial cooperation.

Irfan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 53

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8153 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Irfan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhanshu Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akhilendra Yadav,Beena Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused as the record.

¶6

The instant second bail application for bail has been moved on behalf of the applicant, Irfan, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 339 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B I.P.C and Section 3/5 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion Religion Act, 2020 and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station Rasoolpur, District Firozabad, during pendency of the trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the first information report is based on false and fabricated facts. The accused/applicant is innocent who has been falsely implicated by the informant with ulterior motive.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants contends that main accused Bhiyya @ Yashbabu has already been enlarged by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Civil Misc. Bail Application No. 51733 of 2021 on 07th March, 2022. A copy of the order provided by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. Therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. The role of this applicant is not severe as that of the accused already enlarged on bail and that applicant has also

¶9

assisted in commission of crime. There is no allegation against the applicant by the victim under Section 161 Cr.P.C, even the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. There is no allegations against the applicant, hence the bail application of the applicant deserved to be allowed.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that only general and omnibus role has been assigned to the applicant.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that there is no criminal history of the applicant, no likelihood of tempering the evidence or absconding of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that the accused/ applicant is languishing in jail since 16.12.2022, who has no previous criminal history. His further submission is that in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and he will also fully cooperate with the trial court in getting the trial concluded expeditiously. He has also submitted that the applicant will not intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail, but could not rebut the aforesaid facts and evidence.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that in the aforesaid circumstances, it is a fit case in which the accused-applicant should be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Thus, having regard to overall facts and circumstances of this case and also keeping in view the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, the nature of offence, evidence regarding the complicity of applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, a case for bail is made out. The bail application is, thus,

¶15

allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant, Irfan be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶17

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial;

¶18

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment;

¶19

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail;

¶20

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 officer;

¶21

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence, in case the witnesses are present in court;

¶22

The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶24

It is made clear that the trial of the aforesaid case shall be conducted without being influenced by any observation made herein above which are confined to the disposal of the instant application for bail.

¶25

Order Date :- 13.04.2023. Vinod..

¶26

Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Irfan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irfan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Sewak Vs Banwari and Others

Brij Nath and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Mushtaq Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Rohitas Kumari and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Omkar Vs State of U.P.

Roop Ram Vs Ram Sanehi and Another