Mohd. Hanif and Another v. State of U.P

Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 40976 of 2023 Applicant :- Mohd. Hanif And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Bhan Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶2It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that as per the allegations in the First Information Report, it is alleged that the accused persons who are eight in number have entered into the house of the informant and thereafter the co-accused Hasim and Nazir has fired. The general role of entering in to the house has been assigned to applicant no. 1 Hanif, whereas applicant no. 2 has been assigned the role of assault on injured Salma. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the injury report of the injured Salma is at page 45 of the paper book, which has been caused by hard and blunt object and as per the supplementary medical report which is at page 48 of the paper book, no bony injury has been seen on the skull, there is fracture in left wrist. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that criminal history of the applicants has been explained in para 19 of the affidavit and para 3 of the supplementary affidavit. He submits that considering injuries suffered by the injured Salma and the general role assigned to applicant no. 1, no offence under Section 307 IPC is made against the applicants. Applicants are languishing in jail since

20.7.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶3Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case.

¶4Learned AGA for the State has pointed out the criminal antecedents of the applicants. No material or circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witness in previous criminal cases. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:- "We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked."

¶5In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶6In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicants is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicants might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicants in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

¶7The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC

¶51Learned AGA has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶8No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶9It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶10Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

¶11In the present case, it is to be seen that applicant no. 1 has been assigned role of entering the house. Applicant no. 2 has been assigned role of assault on Salma. Injury on injured Salma are by hard and blunt object. Injury not on vital part.

¶12Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶13Let the applicants Mohd. Hanif and Khalil involved in Case Crime No. 95 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 323, 504, 506 and 427 I.P.C., Police Station Devraniya, District Bareilly be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:- i. The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. ii. The applicants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. iii. The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicants shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. iv. The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. v. The applicants 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. vi. The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. vii. In the event, the applicants changes residential address, the applicants shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

¶14In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 13.10.2023 Aiman High Court of Judicature at Allahabad