Allowed

Taj Mohammad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2024/11040/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for bail under sections 380, 457, and 411 IPC, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant. Considering the nature of evidence and constitutional mandates, the court found it a fit case for bail subject to specific conditions, clarifying that the decision did not reflect on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

The applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount of the satisfaction of the court concerned with specified conditions.

Taj Mohammad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:71594

¶2

Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11040 of 2024 Applicant :- Taj Mohammad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶5

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 127 of 2024, under sections 380, 457, 411 IPC ,Police Station- Bewana, District -Ambedkar Nagar.

¶6

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He next added that though it has been shown that the diesel engines were received from the workshop of the applicant but there is no independent public eye witness of the alleged recovery. He submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.8.2024. He added that there is no previous criminal antecedent of the applicant. He further submits that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶7

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is not entitled for any relief as he has committed offence, as the diesel engines were received from the workshop of the applicant and there is cogent and credible evidence against the applicant.

¶8

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that it has been shown that the diesel engines were received from the workshop of the applicant but there is no independent public eye witness of the alleged recovery; the applicant is languishing in jail since 27.8.2024; there is no previous criminal antecedent of the applicant; coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie

¶10

satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶11

Let the applicant Taj Mohammad , involved in the aforementioned crime 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, with the following conditions:-

¶12

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

¶13

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶14

(3) 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.; and

¶15

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶17

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶18

Order Date :- 23.10.2024 / Anuj Sing h

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Taj Mohammad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taj Mohammad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Angad Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sandeep Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sateesh Chandra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Aadya Prasad Tiwari Vs State O U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Yameen Shahid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. of Lko. and Another

Raju Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.