Irfan @ Chhotu vs State Of U.P.
2012 Latest Caselaw 4855 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 51
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26150 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Irfan @ Chhotu
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Satyendra Narain Singh,Subhash Chandra Pandey
 
Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent.

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime No. 308 of 2012, under Sections 395, 397, 386, 342 and 412 IPC,  police station  Gangoh, District Saharanpur  with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the first information report and after one and half months of the alleged incident, the name of the applicant came into light in the statement of the co-accused and after one month thereof two mobile phones and Rs. 2100/- are alleged to have been recovered  from the applicant, when in fact no such recovery has been effected from the applicant  nor there is any independent witness of the alleged recovery.  It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has no criminal history and he has been falsely implicated due to ulterior motives.  It is next contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 11.8.2012 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, let the applicant Irfan alias Chhotu, involved in case crime No. 308 of 2012, under Sections 395, 397, 386, 342 and 412 IPC,  police station  Gangoh, District Saharanpur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction  of court concerned on the following conditions that:-

1.   The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

2.  The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

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

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the order granting bail shall automatically be vacated.

Order Date :- 8.10.2012

faraz