Allowed

Usman @ Pasha and Another v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home

Allahabad HC21 May 2024BAIL/4666/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Sections 395, 201, 120-B, 397/34 IPC for alleged armed loot of copper coil from a factory. Court noted parity with co-accused already granted bail, absence of recovery from applicants and no apprehension of flight or tampering, and released the applicants on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each, subject to trial-conduct conditions.

Usman @ Pasha and Another vs State of U.P… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40005

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4666 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Usman @ Pasha And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhaker Prakash,Satish Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

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

¶8

This bail application has been moved seeking bail in respect of Case Crime No. 31 of 2024, under Sections 395, 201, 120-B, 397/34 I.P.C. relating to Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants are that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case.

¶10

It is submitted that the FIR has been lodged by the complainant against unknown persons alleging therein that on 27.1.2024 at around 01.00 am, 8 to 10 persons trespassed Balaji Transformers Factory situate at G-26, Chinhat, Deva Road and at gunpoint, they locked the guard into the room and thereafter, they looted around 6500 kg of copper coil, relay gas cylinder etc. and loaded it on the truck and absconded. It is in the aforesaid backdrop, the recovery was effected on 5.1.2024. However, there is no recovery of anything incriminating from the possession of the applicants.

¶11

It is further urged that the other co-accused namely Nand Kishor @ Sagar and Saleem Miyan have already been granted bail by means of order dated 2.4.2024 and 5.4.2024 respectively. The copy of the bail order has been annexed with this bail application as annexure no.3.

¶12

It is also urged that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶14

Considering the rival submissions as well as the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record also 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.

¶15

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicants Usman @ Pasha and Anvar involved in the above-mentioned case crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. At the time of executing required sureties, the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that the y 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.

¶18

(ii) 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

¶19

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

¶20

(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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

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

¶22

(v) 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. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicants are 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 them 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 :- 25.5.2024 ank

¶25

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Usman @ Pasha and Another v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usman @ Pasha and Another v. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home

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

Sudheer Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. and 3 Others

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

Kamaluddin Vs Ram Lali Srivastava and Others

Dileep Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Suresh Chandra Mishra vs Sri Anand Kumar Singh, Managing Director Pradeshik Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Lko.

Ishrat Zameer Khan vs Uttar Pradesh Waqf Tribunal Thru. Registrar and Ors.