Allowed

Mohd. Ashif v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Jan 2025BAIL/1262/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application under BNS sections for offences at Koraon police station, Prayagraj. Applicant not named in FIR, delayed by 17 days, with criminal history partly explained. Relying on Supreme Court bail precedents, court allowed bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions: no tampering with evidence and presence before trial court at charge-framing etc.

Mohd. Ashif vs State of U.P. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:7547

¶2

Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1262 of 2025 Applicant :- Mohd. Ashif Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manjur Mohammad Ansari,Mo Shadab,Mohd Haleem Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Manjur Mohammad Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶5

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 258 of 2024, under Sections 331(4), 305(A), 317(2), 317(4) of B.N.S., Police Station Koraon, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. It is further stated that the applicant is not named in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by 17 days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶7

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

¶8

There is a criminal history of 11 cases assigned to the applicant out of which seven cases have been foisted against the applicant at a go and criminal history of four cases prior to the instant case has been explained. The applicant is languishing in jail since 03.11.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶10

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 , the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶11

In light of the judgement of the Supreme Court passed in Niranjan Singh and another vs Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and others AIR 1980 SC 785, this Court has avoided detailed

¶12

examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant- Mohd. Ashif , who is involved in aforementioned case 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶15

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶16

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is 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 him in accordance with law.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶19

Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Sumit S

¶20

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Ashif v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Ashif v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Tanuj Dhaka vs State of U.P.

Smt. Kanijan vs State of U.P.

Harshvardhan Alias Vivek Kumar vs State of U.P.

Preetam Singh vs State of U.P.

Bhupendra Singh vs State of U.P.

Anil Kanjad and Another vs State of U.P.