Allowed

Ansar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC18 Dec 2024BAIL/11882/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, granted bail to the applicant Ansar in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11882 of 2024. The court cited lack of specific role assignment, absence of cogent evidence, and the grant of bail to an identical co-accused as key factors, ordering release on bond with conditions regarding evidence tampering and court attendance.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Ansar released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in amounts satisfactory to the court.

Ansar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:84901

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11882 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ansar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Rai,Arshad Jameel,Mukhtar Ahamad,Rajendra Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ana Fatma,Matri Datt Tripathi,Shresth Agarwal

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 437 of 2024, under sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 3(5) BNS and 7 C.L.A. Act, P.S.- Maurawan District -Unnao.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the applicant is named in the first information report, but no specific role has been assigned to him. He added that police has failed to segregate the role of the applicant and the statement of the injured also do not disclose any specific role coupled with the fact that the applicant has a case criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. He next added that identically situated co-accused, namely, Anwar has already been enlarged on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12454 of 2024 vide order dated 3.12.2024 passed by this Court and applicant is seeking parity of the same. Further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.09.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned counsels for the complainant as well as the State have vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submit that there are as many as six injured persons and they have received serious injures and the applicant is named in the first information report as well as in the statement of the injured persons as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶10

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal

¶11

of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.09.2024; there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect him with the offence. This Court has also taken note of fact that the applicant has not been assigned any specific role; identically situated coaccused, namely, Anwar has already been enlarged on bail; the applicant has a case criminal history as is mentioned in paragraph no. 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, 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 applicant- Ansar involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his 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 applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

(2) 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. He 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;

¶16

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

¶17

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under

¶18

Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

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 applicant to prison.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 18.12.2024 Shravan

¶22

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

Ansar v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ansar 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

Dinesh Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ramasarey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Somai Kori Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Lakhan @ Aman Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Krishnakant Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Islamuddin Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko