Allowed

Mohammad Tausif v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC5 Jun 2024BAIL/929/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application filed by Mohammad Tausif in a criminal case under Sections 307, 504, and 506 IPC. The prayer was granted based on the hostility of prosecution witnesses, the applicant's custody since December 2023, absence of criminal history, and the constitutional mandate under Article 21.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding witness interference and court attendance.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:78070

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 929 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohammad Tausif Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Pandey,Baljit Pandey,Krishna Dutt Tripathi,Ramakar Shukla,Vinod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amar Nath Dubey

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Amar Nath Dubey, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

¶8

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.493 of 2023, under section 307,504,506 IPC, Police Station- Gosaiganj, District- Sultanpur.

¶9

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 next added that the statement of the injured as well as other three witnesses has demolished the story of the prosecution as they did not support the version of the prosecution. He further submits that there is a specific averment of the injured in the cross examination that on the instance of the other person, the FIR has been lodged and as such, the applicant is not involved in committing the offence. He also submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 13.12.2023. Further submitted that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State and Shri Amar Nath Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the informant have opposed the contentions aforesaid, but they could not dispute the fact that all the witnesses including the injured have become hostile as they did not support the version of the prosecution.

¶11

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the three witnesses and the injured have become hostile and they have demolished the story of the prosecution as they did not support

¶12

the version of the prosecution; the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.12.2023; there is no criminal history of the applicant coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, 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.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant- Mohammad Tausif 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:-

¶16

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶17

(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;

¶18

(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

¶19

(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 Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 25.11.2024 Shravan

¶24

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

Mohammad Tausif v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Tausif 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arvind Maurya and 30 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

K.K. Bajpai @ Rajan and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Kritija vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Haseeb @ Julla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vijay Upadhyay @ Sonu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy. Home Govt. Lko

Ram Kishun Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others