Atahar v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52028 of 2023 Applicant :- Atahar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Agarwal,Naveen Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri N.K. Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶2The instant bail application, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 71 of 2023, under Sections 3/5Ka/5Kha/8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Mahrajganj during pendency of the trial.

¶3Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Buddhu Maurya in police custody. The said statement, insofar as it implicates the applicant is unreliable. False recovery has been shown from the vehicle which does not belong to the applicant. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. It is next contended that the co-accused Buddhu Maurya has been granted bail by this court vide order dated

2.8.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 32253 of 2023. The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 23 of the bail application. The applicant is in jail since 5.10.2023. In case he is enlarged 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 counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this Court prima facie finds that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The name of the applicant was disclosed by co-accused Buddhu Maurya in police custody. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. The co-accused Buddhu Maurya has been granted bail by this court. Further the applicant has presently remained confined for almost two months and there is no hope of early conclusion of trial, more so when 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 intimidate the witness, 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, Atahar involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that: i. the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence; ii. the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witness; iii. the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶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 :- 5.12.2023 S.S. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad