Mukhtar Ali v. State of U.P

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 33535 of 2023 Applicant :- Mukhtar Ali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶3Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 385 of 2022, U/S 342, 379 IPC, Police Station Bhongaon, District Mainpuri, during the pendency of trial.

¶4As per prosecution story, some unknown persons are stated to have stolen golden chain of the mother of the informant on

21.8.2022 at about 3.00 pm when she was travelling in an e-rikshaw.

¶5Learned 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. He has further stated that the applicant is not named in the FIR. His name has come up during investigation. No test identification parade has been conducted as per Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act. The applicant has a criminal history of two cases, which has been explained in the affidavit accompanying the bail application. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the judgement of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Apex Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶6Several 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 24.2.2023. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶7Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application but has not disputed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶8Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India 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.

¶9Let the applicant-Mukhtar Ali 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.

¶10In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶11It 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. (Justice Krishan Pahal) Order Date :- 1.11.2023 Shalini High Court of Judicature at Allahabad