Allowed

Mohd. Jeeshan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Oct 2023BAIL/9263/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal bail application, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant, noting a prima facie lack of independent witnesses to alleged recovery, no substantive evidence, and reasonable confinement duration without specific state apprehension of tampering or intimidation.

What did the court decide?

Principal applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties of like amount.

Mohd. Jeeshan Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194238

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9263 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Jeeshan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Siya Ram Verma,Anemash Kumar Kushwaha,Pradeep Kumar Pal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

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

¶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. 6 of 2023, under Sections 457, 380 and 411 I.P.C., Police Station- Anwarganj, District- Kanpur Nagar during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant was not arrested at the spot. He was forcibly taken from this house and has been implicated in the instant case. No recovery of any incriminating article has been made from the applicant. The recovery is false and planted. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The applicant is in jail since 11.01.2023, having no criminal history and in case, he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. 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 there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At present, there is no substantive evidence against the applicant. Further, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has remained confined for more than eight months and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the 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.

¶11

Let the applicant - Mohd. Jeeshan, involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two

¶12

sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that:

¶13

i. the applicant shall not temper with the prosecution evidence;

¶14

ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; and,

¶15

iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶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 :- 9.10.2023 Sachin Mishra

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Jeeshan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Jeeshan 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

Amrit Singh Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Mahendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Bijendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sahil Vs State of U.P.

Dharmraj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dilawar Vs State of U.P.