Allahabad High Court
Jeelani vs State Of U.P. on 29 May, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. 70 Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:98319
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17325 of 2024
Applicant :- Jeelani
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Irshad Ahmad,Mohd Faiz
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
1. Heard Shri Mohd. Faiz, Advocate holding brief of Sri Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicacnt, Sri Tejbhan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
2. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Jeelani under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 98 of 2022 for offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 307, 324, 325 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station- Deoraniya, District- Bareilly during pendency of the trial, after rejecting the bail application of the applicant by Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Bareilly vide order dated 16.04.2024.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the first information report dated 08.04.2024 was lodged against the applicant and three other named persons by brother of the injured persons alleging that the applicant and other co-accused having deadly weapon like Hockey, Lathi, Kanta and country made pistol entered into the house of the first informant and assaulted Mohd. Qamar, Mohd. Riyaz and the first informant, who sustained injuries.
4. It is further submitted that the role of assault by Hockey has been assigned to the present applicant. As per medico legal report of injured Mohd. Qamar, one incised wound was found on the skull and one painful red contusion of 7.0 cm x 6.0 cm over mid of forehead was found and other five injuries were found on non-vital part of the body and injury no.2 is lacerated wound of 4.5 cm. x 0.5 x muscle deep placed 8.0 cm. above left ear.
5. It is further submitted that two persons of the applicant's side sustained injuries of lacerated wound, which was medically examined on 07.04.2022. It is further submitted that medical examination of Mohd. Qamar was conducted after about 19 hours of the incident.
6. It is further submitted that cross-case of the present case is Criminal Case No. 113 of 2022, under Section 452, 352, 323, 325, 504 IPC against the persons of the first informant side. It is further submitted that there is no pre-summoning evidence with regard to explanation of the injured of the applicant's side.
7. It is further submitted that two co-accused persons of the present case have been granted bail by the Sessions Court and one co-accused Azam has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 29123 of 2022 vide order dated 10.01.2023.
8. He has next argued that applicant has criminal history of one case, which is related to the year of 2017, in which he has been granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.10.2017. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.03.2024.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments of Apex Court in Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu and another, (2012) 9 SCC 446 and Prabhakar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 wherein the Apex Court has observed that pendency of other criminal cases against the accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.
10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. In case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.
11. It is well settled position of law that bail is the rule and committal to jail is an exception and refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution [Vide State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308 Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429 and Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, (2021) 10 SCC 773.]
12. No material or circumstances has been brought to the notice of this Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witnesses in previous criminal history.
13. Keeping in mind, larger mandate of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused-applicant, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interest of the public/ State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.
14. Let applicant, Jeelani be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:
(i) 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
(iv) 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 the trial court.
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
15. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.
16. The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.
17. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.
18. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
19. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Dated: 29.05.2024
MAA/-
(Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.)
