Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Tauheed vs State Of U.P. on 15 July, 2021
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 14
Case :- BAIL No. - 7282 of 2021
Applicant :- Mohammad Tauheed
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Shukla,Aftab Alam Malik,Mohd. Umar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the records.
2.The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case Crime No. 209 of 2021 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.PC, Section 63 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 and Sections 102 and 103 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, Police Station- Sarojni Nagar, District- Lucknow.
3. As per the version of the FIR dated 14.05.2021, it comes out that the applicant along with others was caught trying to sell duplicate MRF tyres and tubes and Castrol lubricants.
3.Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is a workman working in the shop being run by Mohd. Rafe and he is simply paid Rs. 20/- per change of tyre. It is also contended that the applicant has no role in the matter and unnecessarily being roped in by the police. It is also contended that the applicant is in jail since 14.05.2021. It is further submitted on behalf of the applicant that co-accused Shubham Sinha, having similar role to that of the applicant, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide its order dated 21.5.2021 passed in Bail Application No.5104 (B) of 2021 and, therefore, a ground of parity is made out.
4.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
5.Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties and having perused the records what is apparent from a perusal of the FIR is that applicant has been caught along with others who are trying to sell duplicate MRF tyres and tubes and Castrol lubricants. However, considering the specific averment made in paragraph 16 of the bail application that the applicant is a laborer working in the shop and his job is to change the tyres and tubes and is paid Rs. 20/- for each tyres and tubes that he changes apart from the fact that the applicant is in jail since 14.05.2021 and considering the present COVID situation prevailing in the entire state the Court finds this to be a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
6. Let the applicant Mohammad Tauheed involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (one should be of his family member/near relative) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(v) 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 CrPC (iv) argument / judgment.
(vi) If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
(vii) Since the certified copy of this order, in view of the COVID-2019 pandemic, may not be easily available to the applicant, the applicant may file computer generated copy of this order from the official website of this Court and self- attested by the learned counsel for the applicant, before the concerned Magistrate/Court/Authority/Official.
(viii) The concerned Magistrate/Court/Authority/ Official, before accepting such computerized copy, filed by the applicant, as genuine, shall verify its authenticity from the official website of this Court.
(ix) Office is also directed to send a computerized copy of this order to the District Judge concerned through e-mail or the fax, as the case may be, forthwith.
7. It is provided that none of the observations made above shall be considered by the trial court and the trial shall proceed on its own merits.
Order Date :- 15.7.2021
RKM.
