Allowed

Gaffar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Allahabad HC13 Mar 2024CRLA/831/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court admitted the criminal appeal and, considering the circumstances including prior bail status and evidence infirmities, granted bail to the appellant despite the case being undecided and the fine not being stayed.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties; fine to be deposited within two months.

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

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 831 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Gaffar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. Counsel for Appellant :- Abdul Samad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

(Order on Memo of Appeal)

¶6

Heard Shri Abdul Samad, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Angad Kumar Vishwakarma, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

Perused the impugned judgment.

¶8

Admit.

¶9

Summon the trial court record.

¶10

Notice has already been received by learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State-opposite party.

¶11

List this appeal in due course.

¶12

(Order on C.M. Application No. 1/2024; Bail Application)

¶13

Heard Shri Abdul Samad, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Angad Kumar Vishwakarma, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶14

The appellant/applicant, Gaffar , seeks bail in this appeal, which has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 02.03.2024 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/F.T.C. III, Raebareli, in Session Trial No.52/2013; State vs. Mustak and 9 others, in F.I.R. No/Case Crime No.978/2009, under Section 363, 366, 368, 376 and 506 I.P.C., Police StationNaseerabad, District-Raebareli convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 363 I.P.C. for rigorous imprisonment of four years and a fine of Rs.5000/- and under Section 366 I.P.C. for four years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulations.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that appellant/applicant was on bail during course of trial, which was never misused by him and the appellant/applicant is having criminal history of one case, in which has been acquitted by the competent court, these facts have been mentioned in paragraph

¶16

Nos.13 and 19 respectively, of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. There is no likelihood of this appeal to be heard at an early date or in near future in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the court.

¶17

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the appellant/applicant have also been placed forth before the court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the appellant/applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required.

¶18

Counsel has attempted to point out several other inherent infirmities in the evidence and also the elements of improbability contained therein and it has been argued that with such infirmities on record there is a reasonable prospect of this appeal being allowed after final hearing takes place.

¶19

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶20

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early hearing and conclusion of appeal, this Court is of the view that the appellant/applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶21

Let the appellant/applicant- Gaffar convicted and sentenced in Session Trial No.52/2013; State vs. Mustak and 9 others, in F.I.R. No/Case Crime No.978/2009, under Section 363, 366, 368, 376 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Naseerabad, DistrictRaebareli be released on bail on his executing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶22

It is made clear that fine is not stayed and the same be deposited by the appellant within two months after he is enlarged on bail.

¶23

On acceptance of bail bond and personal bond, the trial court concerned shall transmit the photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record.

¶24

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad or certified copy issued from the Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

¶25

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court, Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶26

Order Date :- 13.3.2024 Piyush/-

¶27

Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gaffar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaffar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Civil Sectt. 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

Similar cases

Vinay Kumar Singh vs Union of India Thru. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Lucknow

Amar Singh vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Vikram Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and 3 Others

Azad @ Chhedai vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Fullu @ Ram Narain vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Daulat vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 4 Others