Allowed

Hasmat Ali @ Guddu and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2024BAIL/11047/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed a bail application by Hasmat Ali and two co-applicants, granting bail on parity with other accused. The Court found no grievous injuries to the principal victim (except one) and noted the applicants had no criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Release of Hasmat Ali, Gogey, and Noor Mohammad on bail with personal bond and two sureties each, subject to specific conditions of non-tampering and court attendance.

Hasmat Ali @ Guddu and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:80910

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11047 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Hasmat Ali @ Guddu And 2 Ors. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that brother of the informant went to ease out near the village and while returning he was assaulted and beaten by the accused no. 1 to 5 by kicks, fists, lathi, danda and sharp edged weapon. He suffered serious injuries. Thereafter all the accused persons went inside the house of the informant and beaten the ladies and children. It is also alleged that Guddu was having 315 bore pistol, Goge was also having the same pistol, Najabu was having banka in his hand, Achhan was having gandasi in his hand, Merajul was having banka in his hand, Lallan was having gandasi in his hand and Noor Mohammad was having pistol in his hand and all of them beaten the informant's family. Shamshad Ali has also beaten the informant's family.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that except Hiraman who has received head injury, the other persons have received only simple injuries. Specific role of inflicting grievous injury to Hiraman has been assigned to accused Najabu. General role has been assigned to all other co-accused persons.

¶9

He submits that co-accused Achhan, Merajul and Dallan have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9714 of 2024. Applicant has no criminal history. Applicant seeks parity with the bail order of aforesaid co-accused persons. The applicants are languishing in jail since 23.09.2024 without having any criminal antecedents.

¶10

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicants of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶12

On due consideration to the fact that except Hiraman no one has received grievous injuries; except Najabu general role has been assigned to all other co-accused persons so also the fact that applicants claim parity with the bail order of aforesaid coaccsed persons namely, Achhan, Merajul and Dallan and coupled with the fact that the applicants are languishing in jail since 23.09.2024 without having any criminal history and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicants on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the applicants, Hasmat Ali @ Guddu, Gogey and Noor Mohammad involved in Case Crime/FIR No.218/2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 333, 115(2), 118(1), 61(2), 109, 190, 117(2) of BNS, Police Station - Thangaon, District - Sitapur, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

(i) The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

(iii) The applicants 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.

¶18

(iv) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.

¶19

(v) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(vi) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants 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.

¶21

Order Date :- 4.12.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hasmat Ali @ Guddu and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hasmat Ali @ Guddu and 2 Ors. v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home 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

Keshav Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt. Lko.

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

Shatrohan @ Shatrughan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Anil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Sandeep Kumar Verma Vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others