Haseen @ Arman v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36467 of 2023 Applicant :- Haseen @ Arman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Venu Gopal,Ankit Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mukesh Joshi Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party and Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mukesh Joshi, learned counsel for the informant.

¶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. 389 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Qilla, District Bareilly during the pendency of the trial.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant and the informant both are claiming rights upon the disputed land. The dispute is purely civil in nature. The father of the applicant had filed Civil Suit No. 512 of 2016 (Mohd. Tahir v. Kamran Afroz) for restraining the informant and others from interfering in the possession of the land by the applicant. Further, in the writ petition filed by the father of the applicant being Writ-B No. 17201 of 2017, Mohammad Tahir v. State of U.P. and others, an interim order of status quo has been granted by this Court vide order dated

11.09.2017. The proceedings are still pending before the courts. The applicant is in jail since 11.07.2023 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 dispute is purely civil in nature. The proceedings are pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bareilly and this Court. Further, the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for more than three 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-Haseen, 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