Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Islamuddin vs State Of U.P. on 16 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:88845
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 21821 of 2023
Applicant :- Mohammad Islamuddin
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ankit Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.482 of 2022, under Sections 420, 406 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Tajganj, District Agra, during the pendency of trial.
5. As per prosecution story, the applicant and co-accused person Mohsin are stated to have taken an amount of Rs.7 lakhs from the informant for getting him a job in education department.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. It is mentioned in the FIR itself that the applicant had given a cheque to the informant, which was dishonored. The case of Negotiable Instruments Act has been converted to I.P.C. by the informant. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant is languishing in jail since 13.10.2022. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the criminal history of five cases assigned to the applicant stands explained. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the judgment of Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. And Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, wherein the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail, if otherwise his case for bail is made out.
8. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and without expressing any opinion on the 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.
10. Let the applicant-Mohammad Islamuddin, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 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.
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
12. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 16.5.2024
Ravi Kant
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
