Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Haneef And Anr. vs State Of U.P. on 24 June, 2021
Bench: Vikas Kunvar Srivastav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 21
Case :- BAIL No. - 1534 of 2021
Applicant :- Mohammad Haneef And Anr.
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhaker Prakash
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
(In chamber)
Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.
The case is called out through video conferencing.
Learned counsel for the bail-applicants Sri Sudhaker Prakash, Advocate and learned brief holder for the State Ms. Anupriya Jaiswal, Advocate are connected through video conferencing.
The present bail application is filed on behalf of the accused-applicants, Mohammad Haneef and Shahban, who are involved in Case Crime No.474/2020, under Sections 380, 411 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Sarojni Nagar, District Lucknow.
The occasion of present bail application has arisen on rejection of bail plea of applicants by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5/Special Judge, P.C. Act, Lucknow vide order dated 09.12.2020.
Counter affidavit has been filed in the matter. Learned counsel for the bail-applicants does not want to file rejoinder affidavit.
Learned counsel for the bail-applicants reading over the first information report submitted that the prosecution case is that an incident of theft in the house of informant, a mobile phone bearing IMEI No.359429092340072 was reported. Consequent thereto, during investigation in trapping of the police party on information of reliable source of police, the accused-applicants were arrested on 27.09.2020 and the stolen property, as reported in the F.I.R. was recovered with the person and possession of the accused-applicants.
Learned counsel for the bail-applicants has no defense in this regard, however, he argues that since the case is Magistrate triable and the accused-applicants are ready to face the trial even their resident and identity are not unknown, they resides within the local limits of the Court, therefore, for the purpose of fair trial, they should be given bail.
Learned A.G.A. submitted that the prosecution case is well supported with the prosecution evidence, even recovery from the person and possession is from the accused-applicants but so far as the opportunity of fair trial is concerned, she has no objection. The accused-applicants have himself disclosed and even averred in the counter affidavit by the State that they have criminal history.
Keeping into mind the valuable right of personal liberty and the fundamental principle not to disbelieve a person to be innocent unless held guilty and if he is not arraigned with the charge of an offence for which the law has put on him a reverse burden of proving his innocence as, held in the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the bail-applicants to enlarge them on bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record, considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and looking into the complicity of the applicants accused in the offence, the gravity of offence, severity of punishment without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.
Let applicants (Mohammad Haneef and Shahban), involved in Case Crime No.474/2020, under Sections 380, 411 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Sarojni Nagar, District Lucknow be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.
(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicants 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. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants 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 them in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 24.6.2021
Saurabh
