Allowed

Yunus v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2024BAIL/8637/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Sections 307/34, 326 IPC arising from cross FIRs; no specific injury role assigned to applicant who was in jail since June 2024 without antecedents. Court allowed bail on parity with co-accused Majid and Sakeel, subject to conditions including bonds and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Yunus released on bail on personal bond and two reliable sureties, subject to conditions

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:54923

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8637 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Yunus Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Qazi Mohd.Ahmad,Aftab Alam,Dilshad Ahmad Siddiqui

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.258 of 2024, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307/34, 326 IPC Police Station Beniganj, District Hardoi.

¶9

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that an altercation took place between Faizal and Sooraj which escalated beyond expectation and when informant and his family members went to the house of Faizal, co- accused, then the accused persons attacked upon the informant and others with sharp edged weapon(gandasa).

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that cross FIRs have been lodged by both the parties. From the side of the applicant three persons namely Asma, Ravi and Mehroon Nisha have sustained injuries. From the informant's side, four persons have sustained injuries. Except Sooraj, all of them have sustained simple injuries. Sooraj has received two injuries on his head which are not simple in nature however, no one has been assigned the role of causing those injures. No

¶11

specific allegation has been made by any of the injured witnesses in their statements. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.6.2024 without having any criminal antecedents..

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that co-accused Majid having similar role has been granted bail vide order dated 5.8.2024 passed in Bail No. 8134 of 2024, Majid vs. State of U.P. and others.

¶13

Another co-accused Sakeel having similar role has been granted bail vide order dated 5.8.2024 passed in Bail No. 7646 of 2024. The applicant seeks parity with the said bail orders.

¶14

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

¶15

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that its a case of parity.

¶16

On due consideration to the facts that cross FIRs have been lodged by both the sides, no specific allegation has been assigned on the present applicant, the applicant is languishing in jail since 19.6.2024 without having any criminal history, he seeks parity with the bail order of co-accused, named above and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶17

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on the grounds of parity.

¶18

Let the applicant Yunus be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his

¶19

furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶20

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶21

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶22

(iii) The applicant 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

(iv) 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.

¶24

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

¶25

(vi) 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

¶26

against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶27

Order Date :- 9.8.2024 kkb/

¶28

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

Yunus v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yunus 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

Vivek Misra Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Deptt Govt Civil Sectt and Another

Alok Misra Vs State of Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

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

Gautam Patel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Manmohan Yogi vs State of U.P. Thru Addl. Chieef Secy. Home Civil Sec. Lko

Nankunna @ Shahid Ali and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another