Chaman @ Hafeej Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Sec. Home Lko

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7160

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 63 of 2025

Applicant :- Chaman @ Hafeej Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Sec. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Roshan Babu Gupta,Vaibhav Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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. 1060 of 2011, under Section 307 IPC, Police Station- Shahabad, District- Hardoi.

¶8

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 matter pertains to year 2011. He next submits that the FIR was lodged under misconception and there is no truthfulness in the prosecution story. He further submits that charge-sheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper with the evidences or would threaten the witnesses. He also submits that the applicant has three cases criminal history which has been explained in the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 5.11.2024. Further submitted that the applicant 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

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant was involved in committing the aforesaid offence and thus, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶10

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 5.11.2024; the matter pertains to year 2011; the FIR was lodged under misconception and there is no truthfulness in the prosecution story; charge-sheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper with the evidences or would threaten the witnesses;

¶11

applicant has three cases criminal history which has been explained in the bail application coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, 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- Chaman @ Hafeej 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 the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

(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;

¶16

(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

¶17

(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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 4.2.2025 Shravan

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chaman @ Hafeej v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Sec. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaman @ Hafeej v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Sec. Home Lko

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Girja Shankar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Ratna Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Secondary Edu. Lko. and 4 Others

Karan Saroj vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Akash Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Radheyshyam Pasi Alias Radhey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Vikrant Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others