Allowed

Irshad Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2024/11600/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bail disposal allowed a bail application filed by Irshad Ali under sections 506, 376, and 120-B IPC. The court granted bail on a personal bond and two sureties subject to strict attendance and cooperation conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions for attendance and cooperation.

Irshad Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home Deptt… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:73507

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11600 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Irshad Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Bhupendra Nath Tripathi,Mithilesh Kumar Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Bhupendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Anit Vishal Srivastava, learned Advocate, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant, the same is taken on record.

¶7

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Irshad Ali) is languishing in jail since 02.10.2024 in Case Crime No.0174 of 2024, under Sections 506, 376 & 120-B I.P.C., Police Station-Saadatganj, District-Lucknow.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has falsely been implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

¶9

4. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned First Information Report (in short "FIR") wherein the date of incident has been indicated as 16.11.2023 whereas the F.I.R. has been lodged on 30.09.2024 and no explanation of inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been given. Since the F.I.R. has been lodged after a substantial delay, therefore, no prompt medical examination could take place and in the medical examination the allegation of the F.I.R. could not be substantiated. The victim is a major lady, aged about 28 years.

¶10

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the present applicant is having no prior criminal history. He undertakes on behalf of the present applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate in the investigation properly.

¶11

On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that since the role of the present applicant was found in the commission of crime, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid factual contention of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

7. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; the fact that the present applicant is having no prior criminal history and the undertaking of the present applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall co-operate in the investigation properly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the issue, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶13

8. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶14

9. Let the applicant (Irshad Ali) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number 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:-

¶15

(i) As soon as the applicant is released from jail, he shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 48 hours, thereafter, to co-operate in the investigation and shall remain co-operative in the investigation till completion of the investigation and filing of the police report, failing which, an application for cancellation of bail may be filed.

¶16

(ii) 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶17

(iii) The applicant 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 269 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶18

(iv) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 208 of the B.N.S., 2023.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the

¶20

trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶21

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶22

Order Date :- 7.11.2024 Suresh/

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Irshad Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irshad Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. 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

Jai Narayan Bajpai and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Ram Kumar Chaudhari and 2 Others Vs the Special Judge (Anticorruption /Cbi, West) Lucknow and 8 Others

Rampratap Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko

Shanti Devi @ Rajkumari @ Rajkumari Vs State of Up through Prin. Secy., Home Govt of Up Lucknow

Nishu Tomar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Deepu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.