Allowed

Sahil and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2024BAIL/11835/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted bail to two applicants (Sahil and Jaheer) in a case under the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita. The court acknowledged that a co-accused had been released on bail and noted the applicants' clean record or explained criminal history. Bail was scheduled with personal bond and specific conditions to ensure presence in court and non-tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail on personal bond and two sureties each with conditions to appear in court on all dates and not to tamper with evidence.

Sahil and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:76645

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11835 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sahil And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Kumar Singh,Pushpendr Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nouphil Ahmad

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Nouphil Ahmad, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with the prayer to release them on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 0264 of 2024, under sections 191(3), 190, 109(1), 324(5), 118(1),110, 115(2), 352, 74, 351(3), 333, 191(2) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, Police StationBangarmau, District- Unnao.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He added that the role main role of opening fire is attributed to the co-accused, Shubham Mishra, who has already been enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 25-10-2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11405 of 2024. He submits that though the applicants are named in the first information report, but, the main role is attributed to the co-accused namely, Shubham Mishra. He further submits that no specific role has been assigned to the present applicants and there is no ample evidence against them. He has also shown the other falsity in the story of the prosecution. He added that the applicant No.1 has no previous criminal history and applicant No.2 has previous criminal history, which has been explained in paragraph no.3 of the supplementary affidavit dated 20.11.2024. He next submits that they are languishing in jail since 07.08.2024 and their cases are identical to the case of Shoeb Ali, who has been granted bail in Criminal Misc.10334 of 2024 vide order dated 06.11.2024 and the applicants are seeking parity of the same and he undertakes that in case, they are granted bail, they will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶10

Per contra, Sri Nouphil Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the complainant as well as the learned counsel for the State have vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that the applicants are named in the first information report and they are involved in committing the offence and there are ample evidences against them and as such, they are not entitled for any relief, but, they could not dispute the fact that the identically situated co-accused namely, Shoeb Ali has been enlarged on bail by this court.

¶11

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.08.2024; there is no previous criminal history of the applicant No.1 and criminal history of applicant No.2 has been explained; the identically situated coaccused namely, Shoeb Ali has already been enlarged on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10334 of 2024 vide order dated 06.11.2024 passed by this Court and the applicant is seeking parity of the aforesaid order coupled with the fact that the applicants have undertaken that if they are granted bail, they will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicants- Sahil and Jaheer, involved in the aforementioned crime 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:-

¶14

(1) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

(2) 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. They 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 them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶16

(3) The applicants 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 313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶17

(4) 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 fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicants to prison.

¶19

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶20

Order Date :- 20.11.2024 Ashutosh

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sahil and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahil and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Smt. Asha Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. S.I.T. Lko

Pawan Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Sharwan Kumar vs Chairperson Institute of Tool Room Training U.P. and Spl. Secy., Insti. Deve. Deptt. and Others

Matloob @ Pappu and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Virendra Kumar Lodh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Gangeya Mukherji vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Higher Education Lko. and 4 Others