Aijaj Pathan Urf Taju Urf Taj Mohammad Urf Rizawn v. State of U.P

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49298 of 2023 Applicant :- Aijaj Pathan Urf Taju Urf Taj Mohammad Urf Rizawn Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vaishali Sahu,Ashutosh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Heard Sri Ashutosh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri A.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶3Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.443 of 2019, under Sections 379, 411, 413 I.P.C., Police Station Kydganj, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has come up in the statement of arrested co-accused persons, namely, Kaushal Gupta, Vishal, Jitendra Pal @ Jeetu and Ashfaq Ahmad, which is not admissible under Section 26 of Indian Evidence Act. The criminal history of the applicant stands explained in paragraph-16 of the affidavit filed with the bail application. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant could not fetch the bail order in Case Crime No.50 of 2023, although he is on bail in it.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that if otherwise the case of bail is made out then the applicant cannot be kept languishing in jail on account of his criminal antecedents. In Pawan Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. reported in [2007 (1) JIC 680 (Allahabad)], it has been opined by this very Court that if the accused is otherwise entitled to bail, the same should not be refused on the ground of his criminal antecedents.

¶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 24.8.2023. 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.

¶8Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, 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-Aijaj Pathan Urf Taju Urf Taj Mohammad Urf Rizawn, 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. Order Date :- 21.11.2023 Vikas [Krishan Pahal, J.] High Court of Judicature at Allahabad