Haider vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:22645

Court No. - 75

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4905 of 2025

Applicant :- Haider Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Pandey,Pawan Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ajay Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.P. Maurya, learned brief holder for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Haider under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 196 of 2019 for offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 and 325 registered at Police Station- Uttraon, District- Prayagraj, during pendency of the trial, after rejection of the bail application of the applicant by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Prayagraj, vide order dated 31.1.2025.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the first information report dated 22.07.2019 has been lodged under sections 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C against the applicant and three other named persons. It is further submitted that charge sheet has been filed under sections 323, 504, 506, 308 and 325 of I.P.C. against the appellant and other co-accused persons. It is further submitted that as per statement of injured, the role of assaulting by danda is assigned to co-accused Babu Lal. It is further submitted that the offence is punishable up to seven years.

¶9

He has next argued that the applicant is languishing in jail since 20.1.2025 and has no previous criminal history and if the applicant is released on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Per contra , learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very

¶11

serious in nature. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;

¶13

(a) The injury caused on the head of the injured is assigned to coaccused Babu Lal.

¶14

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶15

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118, the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let applicant, Haider be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶17

(i) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial

¶20

court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

¶21

(iv) 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 the trial court.

¶22

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶23

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶24

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

¶25

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶26

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.

¶27

Order Date :- 17.2.2025 A.P. Pandey

¶28

Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Haider v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haider 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Islam vs State of U.P.

Amit Jain vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Collectar Singh 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Aas Ilahi and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Praveen Singh Chandel vs State of U.P. and 6 Others