Allowed

Peer Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2024BAIL/1767/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted bail to the applicant, Peer Ali, in a criminal case involving sections of the IPC related to a land dispute. The court noted discrepancies between FIR and a non-cognizable report and found no risk of the applicant fleeing or tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond with two sureties under specific conditions of appearance.

Peer Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40371

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1767 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Peer Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shahabuddin,Narendra Gupta,Pawan Kumar Pandey

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Lalla Ji Maurya

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

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

¶8

By means of the instant bail application, the applicant seeks bail in respect of Case Crime No.325 of 2023 under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506, 316 I.P.C. relating to P.S. Reusa, District Sitapur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is seeking parity with the co-accused Akhtar and Azeez who have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 26.04.2024 and 01.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no.4577 of 2024 and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3614 of 2024.

¶10

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that there are major discrepancies in the case as set up by the complainant, as per the averments made in the First Information Report dated 27.08.2023 filed by the complainant, it is alleged that on 07.07.2023 at around 05:00 PM, the applicant along with the other co-accused had abused the complainant which gave rise to the scuffle wherein the complainant who was 6 months' pregnant was severally assaulted, as a result, she had to abort.

¶11

The further submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that this has been concocted for the reason that in so far as the same incident is concerned, a non-cognizable report was got lodged by Smt. Aliya, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.3 of the bail application wherein general allegations have been leveled against the applicant and the other co-accused further indicating that it was only Smt. Aliya who

¶12

had received injuries. In the said non-cognizable report, there was no mention of the present complainant nor she was present there nor had sustained injuries.

¶13

It is further urged that it is only to give colour to the said incident and exert pressure on the applicant and the other coaccused to succumb to dictate of the complainant in respect of the animosity which was prevailing between the respective parties relating to a land dispute. The case of the prosecution is not supported rather sharp tactics have been adopted to falsely implicate the applicant and in such circumstances, the applicant has been in Jail since 09.11.2023, apart from the fact that he has no criminal history.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, however, could not dispute the aforesaid fact that there is a material variance between the narration of the incident which was recorded in the non-cognizable report instituted by Smt. Alia compared to the manner in which the incident has been stated by the present complainant.

¶15

Considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Let the applicant Peer Ali involved in the aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶17

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶18

(i) 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. 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

(ii) The applicant 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

¶20

proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(iii) 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

(iv) 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. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 27.5.2024 Rakesh/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Peer Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peer Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Maya Devi and 2 Others Vs Civil Judge Junior Division Court 13 Barabanki and 3 Others

Raees Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and Others

Jhinka Devi and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Mahesh Datt Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Ram Shanker Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 2 Others

Vidya Singh Vs Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Others