Allowed

Jahiruddin @ Musa v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2024/978/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed to applicant Jahiruddin @ Musa in a criminal trial case, granting release despite long absconding, on the ground that coercive process was issued without proper service, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Accused applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions regarding court attendance, cooperation, and no interference with witnesses.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11042

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 978 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Jahiruddin @ Musa Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Mansoor,Manoj Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including up-to-date case diary.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Jahiruddin @ Musa for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 698 of 1998, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 and 323 I.P.C., Police Station Krishna Nagar, District Lucknow, during trial.

¶11

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. Applicant after lodging of the F.I.R. had approached the trial court and he was granted bail in this case by the Court of Sessions. However, applicant after getting bail in this case has changed his residence and thereafter no process of the trial court has ever been served on him and, thus, he was not aware about the dates fixed in this case by the trial court or about the process issued by the trial court against him.

¶12

It is vehemently submitted that the extract of the order sheet, which has been brought on record through supplementary affidavit filed today, would itself reveal that since 2006 no process of the trial court has ever been served and without serving coercive process of the nature of N.B.W. or bailable warrant, the process of 82-83 Cr.P.C. has been issued.

¶13

It is further submitted that the order by which the proceedings with regard to the applicant were directed to be

¶14

proceeded under Section 299 of the Cr.P.C. would itself reveal that till that stage also no process of the trial court was served on the applicant. Thus, without service of any process of the trial court, non-bailable warrant and the process of 82-83 Cr.P.C. have been issued and the applicant became aware of the coercive process only when he was arrested by the police. However, he is in jail in this case since 22.11.2023 and he undertakes that he will remain present before the trial court as and when his presence would be required and would not seek any adjournment when the prosecution witnesses would be in attendance.

¶15

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has absconded for more than 17 years and, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that after getting bail in the instant case from the Court of Sessions, the applicant did not appear before the trial court resulting in issuing coercive process of the nature of non-bailable warrants, 82-83 Cr.P.C. against him. The defence of the applicant is that, he changed his residence and, therefore, no process of the trial court was ever served on him. The order-sheet of the trial court from 2006 on wards have been placed before this Court and perusal of this order sheet to some extent substantiate the submissions raised on behalf of the applicant that no coercive order issued by the trial court has ever been served on him since 2006 on wards.

¶17

In the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Inder Mohan Goswami and others vs. State of Uttaranchal and others reported in MANU/SC/7999/2007, it is held that the coercive process, which may curtail the personal liberty of a person could only be issued when the other normal modes of procuring his attendance before the trial court have been exhausted, which is not reflected in this case, as apparently without there being any service on the applicant, the process of non-bailable warrants and 82-83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against him.

¶18

Be that as it may, now the applicant is intending to participate in the trial. He had already been granted bail in this case on merits and on his non-appearance before the trial court, he is in jail. Thus, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. The bail application is, accordingly, allowed .

¶19

Let the accused/applicant- Jahiruddin @ Musa involved

¶20

in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶21

(i) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each and every date of listing and if in any exigency he is not in a position to attend the trial court, for the reasons which are beyond his control, he shall instruct his counsel engaged at the level of the trial court to do all what is necessary for the further progress of the case and violation of this condition alone shall be a sufficient ground for the trial court to cancel the facility of bail granted by this Court.

¶22

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

¶23

(iii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶24

(iv) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶25

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

¶26

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶27

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶28

Order Date :- 7.2.2024 Praveen

¶29

Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jahiruddin @ Musa v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jahiruddin @ Musa v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Raghav Ram Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Ajeet Kumar Gupta @ Ajeet Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Ajeet Kumar Gupta @ Ajeet Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mahesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Pushkar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lucknow and Another

Sundaram Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another