Mohd. Usman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9500

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 124 of 2025

Applicant :- Mohd. Usman Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. Of Home And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rahul Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant,learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

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. 280 of 2024, under section 137(2), 87, 351(3) of BNS and 17/18 of POCSO Act, P.S.- Jaisinghpur, District - Sultanpur.

¶8

The 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 submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR and even the victim in her statement under Section 161, did not name the applicant. He also submits that even before the Doctor, the alleged victim has also not named the applicant. Further submission is that once the statement under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 was recorded, she added that she has named the applicant under duress. He next submits that in fact, there was enmity in between the family members with respect to some land and for putting the pressure over the applicant so as he may not pursue the matter, therefore, the FIR is lodged while narrating the false story. He also submits that the applicant is a law abiding citizen of 55 years of age and has no previous criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 22.11.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Further submitted that the identically situated coaccused namely, Mitthu @ Mithun, has already been enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 30-01-2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 303 of 2025 and the applicant is seeking parity of the same.

¶10

Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant as well as AGA appearing for the State have opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that after thorough investigation, it was found that the applicant was involved in committing offence and as such, he is not entitled for any relief, but, they could not dispute the fact that identically situated co-accused named above, has already been enlarged on bail by this court.

¶11

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.11.2024; prima facie, the victim in her statement did not name the applicant but she added the name of the applicant under duress; prima facie, there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect him with the offence coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, 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.

¶13

Let the applicant- Mohd. Usman, 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:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing

¶15

the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶16

(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;

¶17

(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

¶18

(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.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be 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.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 13.2.2025 AKS

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Usman v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Usman v. State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nandu @ Nand Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Suraj Singh @ Surya Partap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Durgesh Giri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Muslim Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home

Sarvan @ Sharvan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Asharfee Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.