Soheb @ Shoaib v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 42843 of 2023 Applicant :- Soheb @ Shoaib Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- P.K. Singh,Arvind Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

¶2The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 166 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Surauli, District Deoria during the pendency of the trial.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. As per the allegations in the first information report, seven persons including the applicant and an unknown person are alleged to have assaulted two persons, namely, Ram Rajbhar and Aniruddha. A vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender who caused the injuries to the injured. It is next contended that there is cross version of the incident. Both the sides have received injuries. The aggressor is still to be ascertained. The applicant is in jail since 27.07.2023 having no criminal history and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶4Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶5Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court prima facie finds that a vague and general role has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant has not been nominated as the principal offender who caused the injuries to the two injured. There is no clarity with regard to role of the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than two and half months and after submission of the charge-sheet there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, and no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial or intimidate the witness, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶6Let the applicant-Soheb @ Shoaib, involved in the aforesaid case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the conditions that he:

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; and,

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶7In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 17.10.2023 SKT/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad