Mohd Irfan vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:57232

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8451 of 2025

Applicant :- Mohd Irfan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- R.P.S. Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned Advocate, holding brief of Sri R.P.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA, for the State.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.40 of 2023, under Section 302/34 IPC, Police Station Bhagatpur, District Moradabad during pendency of the trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however applicant was named in the FIR along with others but no charge sheet was filed against him and during trial he has been summoned in the present matter along with others under Section 319 Cr.P.C. He next submits, when he along with co-accused Kamil Rafi challenged the summoning order passed against them before this Court in Criminal Revision No. 6653 of 2023 then on 25.10.2024 this Court was pleased to pass protection order in their favour but in the meantime applicant has been arrested and the order passed by this Court has been annexed at page 234 of the paper book and revision filed by them is still pending.

¶9

He further submits that after investigation charge sheet was filed only against co accused Alim Beg, Adil and Nahid Khan and coaccused Nahid Khan and Alim Beg have already been released on bail by this Court and their bail orders have been annexed at page

¶10

239 and 241 of the paper book respectively.

¶11

He further submits that however, applicant is also having criminal history of three other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application.

¶12

He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 4.8.2024, i.e., for the last more than eight months.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submits that from the statements of PW-1 and PW-2 recorded during trial it reflects that applicant also involved in commission of present crime alongwith other accused persons and it appears that Investigating Officer wrongly exonerated him in the present matter during investigation but he could not dispute the fact that applicant has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and charge sheet was filed in the present matter against three accused persons and out of which two accused have already been released on bail by this Court.

¶14

Learned AGA further could not dispute the fact that when applicant and co-accused challenged the summoning order passed against them under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before this Court in criminal revision then a protection order was passed in their favour, however in the meantime applicant has been arrested and the revision filed by them is still pending.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶16

However, applicant was named in the FIR along with others but no charge sheet was filed against him and charge sheet was filed against three accused persons and during trial applicant was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. along with others.

¶17

Record further suggests that applicant challenged the summoning order before this Court in criminal revision and it appears, criminal revision filed by applicant is still pending before this Court and protection order was passed in his favour but it reflects, before that applicant had been arrested in the present matter.

¶18

Further, two co-accused persons against whom charge sheet was filed have already been released on bail by this Court.

¶19

Further, however, applicant is having criminal history of three other cases but his criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application.

¶20

Further, law is settled that ordinarily if otherwise case of bail is made out then merely on the basis of criminal antecedent bail application of an accused should not be withheld.

¶21

Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since 4.8.2024.

¶22

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶23

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶24

Let the applicant- Mohd. Irfan be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶25

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶26

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement,

¶27

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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶28

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶29

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶30

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶31

Order Date :- 18.4.2025 SKM

¶32

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd Irfan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

Mohd 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sonu vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahesh Prasad Rajak vs State of U.P.

Makardhwaj Bhoi vs State of Up

Akash vs State of U.P.

Atul vs State of U.P.

Ritik Sonkar vs State of U.P.