Shan Mohammad@ Maunu v. State of U.P

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49954 of 2023 Applicant :- Shan Mohammad@ Maunu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mrityunjay Dwivedi,Pankaj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Heard Sri Mrityunjay Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶3Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 397 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366 IPC, Police Station Delhi Gate, District Aligarh, during the pendency of trial.

¶4As per prosecution case, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant to marry her on 04.10.2023 at about 10:00 am.

¶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. FIR is delayed by two days and there is no plausible explanation of the said delay. He has further stated that applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel has relied on the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 CrPC, whereas, she has categorically stated that she was scolded by her mother as such she had left her house and she has not levelled any allegations against the applicant rather she is silent regarding him. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit. Several 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 06.10.2023. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶6Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶7Considering 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.

¶8Let the applicant-Shan Mohammad@ Maunu, 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.

¶9In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶10It 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 :- 30.11.2023 Priya High Court of Judicature at Allahabad