Mursaleen v. State of U.P

Court No. - 74 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 52619 of 2023 Applicant :- Mursaleen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dan Bahadur,Vikas Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA 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. 164 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 120-B IPC, Police Station Tanda, District Rampur, during the pendency of trial.

¶3Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The victim in her statement under sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. stated that she had married Mohsin @ Chandu @ Chantu voluntarily on

09.07.2016. There are no allegations against the applicant. It is next contended that co-accused Mohsin @ Chandu @ Chantu has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 10.05.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18500 of 2023. The case of the applicant is on better footing to that of co-accused Mohsil @ Chandu @ Chantu. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 20 of the affidavit. The applicant is in jail since 02.08.2023 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 victim in her statement under sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. has not supported the prosecution version. The victim left her house voluntarily and had married Mohsin @ Chandu @ Chantu. There are no allegations against the applicant. The co-accused Mohsin @ Chandu @ Chantu has been granted bail by this Court. 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.

¶6Let the applicant Mursaleen 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 :- 8.12.2023 Lbm/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad