Allahabad High Court
Gulshan vs State Of U.P. on 24 May, 2023
Bench: Mayank Kumar Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:116995
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38590 of 2021
Applicant :- Gulshan
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Tripurari Pal,Ashwini Kumar Awasthi,Atharva Dixit,Bharat Singh,Gautam Dubey,Himanshu Kuamr
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Jaiswal,Virendra Kumar Gupta
Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant in Case Crime No. 226 of 2021, under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302, 201 IPC Police Station Bilsi, District Budaun with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that although in the F.I.R. specific role has been assigned to the applicant is false which is demonstrated by the testimony of PW-1 Mustakeen who was the informant in the present case and has declared hostile of the prosecution witness. The informant did not corroborate the version of the prosecution and specifically stated that who fired upon Sakib he could not recognize. It is further submitted that applicant has one criminal history under the Arms Act which is imposed upon the applicant after this incident. It is further submitted that co-accused namely, Salman & Muzahid, Bablu @ Chhote, Karai @ Karru, Deen Mohammad, Mushahid and Samiuddin have already been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 19.08.2021, 28.10.2021, 28.10.2021, 21.10.2021, 11.08.2021, 21.10.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications Nos. 30594 of 2021, 44704 of 2021, 44874 of 2021, 39279 of 2021, 28811 of 2021, 37819 of 2021 respectively. Lastly it is submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 30.05.2021 having no criminal history and that in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and he could not dispute the aforesaid fact.
In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-
"15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India SCC para-15 it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant Gulshan in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(1). The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.
(2). The applicant will not influence any witness.
(3). The applicant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(4). The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.
Order Date :- 24.5.2023
Gaurav
