Irshad v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47736 of 2023 Applicant :- Irshad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Shanker Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anupam Anand, learned brief holder for the State-respondent.

¶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. 220 of 2022, under Sections 380, 457, 411 IPC, Police Station Meerapur, District Muzaffar Nagar, during the pendency of trial.

¶3Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The incident is alleged to have occurred in the night intervening 04/05.09.2023. The applicant was arrested along with two others on 23.05.2023 and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. False recovery of ornaments made of yellow metal has been shown from the applicant. There is no independent witness to the recovery. Recovery of Rs. 8,000/- has been shown from a vehicle driven by co-accused Veer Vikram Bahadur Singh. The recovered items cannot be connected with the alleged offence. It is next contended that identically placed co-accused Veer Vikram Bahadur Singh has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 16.11.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45424 of 2023. The applicant claims parity. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 3 of the supplementary affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 23.05.2023 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶4Learned AGA 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. There is no independent witness to the alleged recovery. Identically placed co-accused Veer Vikram Bahadur Singh has been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has remained confined for more than six 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.

¶6Let the applicant Irshad, 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.

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