Irfan vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:58811

Court No. - 86

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12804 of 2025

Applicant :- Irfan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Hanuman Deen Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. As per prosecution case general allegation of assaulting with knife and Danda has been made against five persons including the applicant and no specific allegation has been made against him. One co-accused, Shahid @ Sahil, has already been enlarged on bail and the case of applicant is not on the worse footing than that of the co-accused, Shahid @ Sahil. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that the applicant is in jail since 15.04.2024 with no criminal history.

¶8

Though, the learned A.GA. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but he has not disputed that general allegation has been made against the applicant and no specific allegation has been made against him.

¶9

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed .

¶10

Let the applicant- Irfan, be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 79 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Khalilabad, District- Sant Kabir Nagar, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶11

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶12

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶13

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶14

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶15

v) 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the informant would be free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶17

Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Mustaqeem.

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Irfan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irfan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Prasad Gupta vs State of U.P.

Rizwan Ansari vs Central Narcotic Bureau

Ravindra Pal vs State of U.P.

Raju vs State of U.P. and Another

Virendra Shah vs State of U.P.

Rohit Diwakar vs State of U.P.