Dismissed

Aizaz Khan @ Tinku v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2024BAIL/3521/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application, the Allahabad High Court rejected the applicant's plea to be enlarged on bail. The trial court had cancelled bail alleging violation of conditions due to an assault on a witness. The High Court held that despite some factual disputes regarding the timing of the applicant's presence, the involvement in the assault necessitated continued custody pending

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; applicant not enlarged on bail at this stage.

Aizaz Khan @ Tinku vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:35398

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3521 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Aizaz Khan @ Tinku Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Atmad Hasan Idrisi,Abhishek Srivastava

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sanjeev Kumar Shukla

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned AGA for the Staterespondent and Shri Sanjeev Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the complainant.

¶8

By means of the instant bail application, the applicant seeks bail in respect of FIR/Case Crime No.224/2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Qaiser Bagh, District Lucknow.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated.

¶10

It is submitted that Smt. Shameem Bano lodged an FIR on 16.11.2021 against the applicant and the co-accused Shamshuddin.

¶11

It is further stated that upon investigation, the applicant and the co-accused were exonerated on the basis of the statement given by the complainant. The applicant was also arraigned in Case Crime No.224/2021 wherein the applicant was enlarged on bail by means of the order dated 09.06.2022 passed by the Session Court and a copy of the said order has been placed on record as Annexure No.3.

¶12

It is urged that while the applicant was on bail, the State moved an application seeking cancellation of bail on the ground that after being enlarged on bail, the applicant had violated the bail condition. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the trial Court by means of the order dated 03.01.2024 cancelled the bail and the applicant was directed to surrender himself before the police and has been sent to jail since 08.01.2024.

¶13

The further submission of the learned counsel for the applicant

¶14

is that for insufficient reasons, the bail has been cancelled and the applicant has been in jail since 08.01.2024 coupled with the fact that the allegations against the applicant that while on bail he had assaulted one Smt. Shaila, who was a witness to the said case bearing Case Crime No.224/2021.

¶15

It is further urged that from a bare perusal of the averments made in the FIR/Case Crime No.61/2023 is that the applicant and the co-accused had assaulted the mother of the said complainant.

¶16

It is further urged that from the statement of the injured namely Smt. Shaila which has been placed on record as Annexure No.7, it would reveal that there was heated arguments between Smt. Shaila and the co-accused and it is at a later stage that the applicant had reached the spot. Thus, the grounds upon which the applicant's bail application has been rejected were incorrect. The other witness namely Adnan Ali Ansari also stated that the applicant had reached the spot at a later stage, in the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant can be enlarged on bail.

¶17

The aforesaid submissions are refuted by the learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant.

¶18

It is further urged that the order-sheet would indicate that the applicant is delaying the trial while he was on bail. It is also submitted that the complainant had to file a petition before the High Court seeking expeditious disposal of the trial.

¶19

It is further submitted that a total number of 12 witnesses have to be examined in the trial out of which only 3 witnesses have been examined and 2 witnesses of fact are yet remaining. It is thus submitted that the applicant if enlarged on bail at this stage may again assault the witnesses and in such circumstances, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶20

The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

¶21

Apparently, Smt. Shaila is a witness in FIR/Case Crime No.224/2021. As per the incident which occurred and on the basis of which, the State had moved an application seeking cancellation of bail indicates that Smt. Shaila received four injuries.

¶22

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant had reached the site at the later stage and not when the scuffle has started is not material. What is important to note

¶23

is that while the applicant was on bail knowing fully well that Smt. Shaila was a witness, yet the applicant involved himself in an assault where Smt. Shaila is said to have received four injuries. This has been taken note of by the trial Court while rejecting the bail application as this amounts to violating the condition of bail.

¶24

In the aforesaid circumstances where the trial is in progress and two witnesses of fact are yet to be examined, in such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected leaving it open for the applicant to move a fresh application once the remaining two witnesses of fact are examined before the trial Court.

¶25

Needless to say that since the order of expedition has already been passed and the trial Court shall ensure that the trial is concluded expeditiously and the prosecution shall also ensure that it will not seek any unnecessary adjournment for examining the witnesses.

¶26

Order Date :- 7.5.2024 Rakesh/-

¶27

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

Aizaz Khan @ Tinku v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aizaz Khan @ Tinku 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Pushpa Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies,U.P. Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Farooq Ahmad vs Smt. Preeti Gupta and 5 Others

Rahul vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Hasmat Ali @ Kalia vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Rajeev Kumar vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Indrajeet Singh vs Samarjeet Singh and 11 Others