Nafees v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44737 of 2023 Applicant :- Nafees Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Supplementary affidavit filed by the counsel for the applicant, is taken on record.

¶2Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶3The 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. 18 of 2023, under Sections 3/5Ka/8 Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Amrahat (Gohani), District Kanpur Dehat/Ramabai Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

¶4Counsel 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 surfaced during investigation. No recovery of prohibited cow meat has been made from the applicant. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Rohit Kumar Gautam has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 36109 of 2023. The applicant claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 25.07.2023 having no criminal history and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶5Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶6Having 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 surfaced during investigation. Identically placed co-accused Rohit Kumar Gautam has been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The applicant has remained confined for more than four months and after submission of the charge-sheet 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 delay the trial 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.

¶7Let the applicant Nafees, 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 the 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.

¶8In 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 :- 7.12.2023 Lbm/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad