Aarif v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51847 of 2022 Applicant :- Aarif Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Haya Rizvi,Mohammad Zakir,Mumtaz Ali,Rahul Kumar Sharma,Shad Khan 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.172 of 2022, under Sections 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act., Police Station Chandapa, District Hathras during the pendency of the trial.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of a country made pistol has been shown from the personal possession of the applicant and cow meat has been shown from a car, which does not belong to the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Aleem alias Kale has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31729 of 2023, vide order dated 20.07.2023. The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 7.10.2022. The criminal history explained in paragraph no.2 of the Supplementary Affidavit 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 there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. At this stage there is no substantive evidence against the applicant. Identically placed co-accused Aleem alias Kale has been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has explained criminal antecedents in paragraph no.2 of the supplementary affidavit . Moreover, the applicant has remained confined for almost one year, 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-Aarif, 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 :- 1.11.2023 SFH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad