Allowed

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

Allahabad HC25 May 2024ABAIL/1166/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, Meraj @ Miraj, in a case involving mischief, cheating, and criminal conspiracy, noting his lack of criminal history and no apprehension of flight risk.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial, to be enforced by personal bond with sureties and adherence to specified conditions.

Meraj @ Miraj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1166 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Meraj @ Miraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Gayasuddeen,Mohd. Raziullah,Zartab Qamar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This bail application has been moved seeking bail in respect of Case Crime No. 31 of 2024, under Sections 395/412/201/120-B I.P.C. Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.

¶8

It is submitted that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant against unknown persons alleging therein that on 27.1.2024 at around 01.00 am, 8-10 persons trespassed Balaji Transformers Factory situate at G-26, Chinhat, Deva Road and at gunpoint, they locked the factory staff in the room. Thereafter, they looted around 6500 kg of copper coil, relay gas cylinder etc. and loaded it on the truck and absconded. It is in the aforesaid backdrop, the recovery was effected on 5.1.2024. However, there is no recovery of anything incriminating from the possession of the applicant.

¶9

It is urged that insofar as the present applicant is concerned, there is no allegation against him nor any arms or cartridge has been recovered from the applicant. The only allegation against is that the applicant helped in loading the stolen goods in the truck. It is further urged that the applicant does not have any criminal history.

¶10

At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is seeking parity with the co-accused namely Nand Kishore @ Sagar and Salem Miyan who have been granted regular bail by this Court by means of the order dated 02.04.2024 and 05.04.2024 respectively passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3672 of 2024 and Criminal Misc.

¶11

Bail Application No. 3809 of 2024. Copy of the aforesaid order is brought on record as Annexure No.5 with the bail application.

¶12

It is also urged that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

The submission is that the applicant is ready to follow the conditions as prescribed under the law. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed and there is no chance of tampering with the evidence or influence any witness. It is urged that applicant has no criminal history. In these facts and circumstances, it is prayed that the applicant may also be provided the benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, however, could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶15

Having considered the submissions and considering the facts and circumstances including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the applicant including that he has no criminal history and no apprehension has been expressed that the applicant is at flight risk, hence, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant can be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶16

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Meraj @ Miraj involved in the aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court Concerned, with the conditions:-

¶17

(a) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;

¶18

(b) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶19

¶20

(d) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the

¶21

prosecution witness;

¶22

(e) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶24

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶25

Order Date :- 25.5.2024 Asheesh

¶26

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meraj @ Miraj 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

Dr. Swati Agarwal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Institutional Finance Lko. and 3 Others

Baliram vs State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue and others

Smt. Gyanwati and Another vs Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow and Others

Udhaw Singh vs Enforcement Directorate Thru. Assistant Director, Lko.

Ambika Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home

Hathaode @ Ajmat Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.