Allowed

Rehan @ Maanu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Allahabad HC27 May 2024/1701/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing a bail application in a trial case alleging attempted murder, the Single Judge granted bail citing lack of apprehension of absconding or witness tampering, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the prosecution's case.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40368

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1701 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rehan @ Maanu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Vimal Kishor Singh,Razi Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Saurabh Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

By means of the instant bail application, the applicant seeks bail in respect of FIR/Case Crime No.819 of 2023, under Sections307, 323, 506 I.P.C, Police Station- Thakurganj, DistrictLucknow, during trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the instant bail application submits that it is case of false implication even if the case of the prosecution as is evident from first information report, statement of the witness including of the injured Abhay Singh Chauhan and the medical reports of Abhay Singh Chauhan are taken on its face, no case under Section 307 I.P.C. may emerge against applicant.

¶9

Further, it is submitted that the injured has sustained injuries of the nature of swelling, abrasions, contusion and one injury of laceration and no grievous injury has been caused, the weapon of assault is a part of brick and thus, the cumulative effect of this factual matrix may not be culminated to perceive that there was any threat to the life of the injured and thus, the invocation of Section 307 I.P.C. in absence of any requisite intention which could only be gathered by the seat of injury and the nature of injuries, is without there being any basis. Therefore, the Investigating Officer has committed manifest illegality in submitting the charge-sheet under Section 307 I.P.C. as at the most, the instant case may not travel beyond Section 323 I.P.C.

¶10

It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶11

It is further submitted that the co-accused Mohd. Islam has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 06.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.942 of 2024.

¶12

Learned A.G.A., on the basis of material in the case diary available with him, has opposed the prayer for bail, however, could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶13

Considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Let the applicant Rehan @ Maanu involved in the aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶15

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶16

(i) 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

(ii) 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 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(iii) 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(iv) 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

¶20

313 Cr.P.C. 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.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 27.5.2024 Rakesh/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rehan @ Maanu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rehan @ Maanu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

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

Anish @ Gantha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Kashif Vs U.O.I. Deptt. of Air Customs C.C.S.I. Airport Thru. Deepak Kumar Inspector Air Customs Officer

Meraj @ Miraj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Siya Ram and Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki and Others

Ved Prakash @ Kunja vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Peer Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.