Court No. - 89
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 43772 of 2021 Applicant :- Aarif Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Siya Ram Verma,Deepak Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri L.D. Rajbhar, the learned AGA for the State.
This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of the applicant- Aarif for enlarging him on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 136 of 2019, under Sections 3/5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act and 379 and 411 I.P.C, registered at Police Station- Derapur, District- Kanpur Dehat.
The bail application so preferred by the applicant for enlarging him on bail in the aforenoted sections being Bail Application No. 1495 of 2021, Aarif Vs. State of U.P. has been rejected on 15.9.2021 by the Court of Sessions Judge, Ramabai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat).
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged by one Sri Kalka Prasad son of Lok Nath on 5.6.2019 against the applicant as well as Altaf son of Usman, Sheebu son of Ishtiyaq, Mueen @ Chand son of Muslim, Nasir son of Aarif, Mukeem son of Muslim and Zafar son of Suleman under Sections 379 and 411 IPC read with Sections 3/5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act, P.S. Derapur, District Ramabai Nagar being FIR no. 136 alleging one of the co- accused being Altaf was found slaughtering the cow and he named the applicant and other co-accused. Learned counsel has argued that the applicant is not involved in cow slaughtering. However, a story has been planted just in order to implicate him and further there is nothing to show that the meat which was recovered pertains to cow. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he has not committed any offence so sought to be alleged to have been committed by him and he is languishing in jail since 26.8.2021.
In so far as the issue with regard to the criminal history is concerned, this Court by virtue of the order dated 28.10.2021 had granted time to the learned counsel for the applicant to file a supplementary affidavit explaining the criminal history of the applicant. Thereafter, a counter affidavit has also been filed by the State, to which the learned counsel for the applicant has argued that he does not propose to file any rejoinder in this regard.
From the perusal of the supplementary affidavit, it reveals that a Case Crime no. 70 of 2004 had been lodged against the applicant under Section 3/5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act, in which the applicant obtained bail from the Incharge CJM-Ist, Kanpur Dehat in Bail Application No. 1220 of 2004, which is clear from Page-6 of the supplementary affidavit. Further in the year 2002 itself a criminal case was lodged against the applicant being Case Crime no.100 of 2002, under Sections 3/5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act and the applicant was enlarged on bail by virtue of order dated 1658 of 2002, which is clear from page-9 of the supplementary affidavit.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further placed reliance upon Annexure-3 at page-29 of the paper-book, which is order dated 28.6.2019 passed in Bail Application No.17972 of 2019, Muin @ Chand and 3 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others, order dated 17.10.2020 passed in Bail Application no. 1427 of 2020, Aarif Vs. State of U.P, order dated 17.3.2020 passed in Bail Application no.11388 of 2020, Sahwaj Alias Shibu Vs. State of U.P, order dated 19.10.2020 passed in Bail Application no. 33170 of 2020, Muin @ Chand Vs. State of U.P., order dated 10.12.2020 passed in Bail Application no. 45493 of 2020, Jafar Vs. State of U.P, order dated 16.9.2019 passed in Bail Application no. 35504 of 2019, Nasir Vs. State of U.P, order dated 23.1.2020 passed in Bail Application no. 41438 of 2019, Altaf Vs. State of U.P, as well as the order dated 3.1.2020 in Bail Application no. 58108 of 2019 of one Azad alias Aezaz Khan, who was not named in the FIR, and the order dated 28.6.2021, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 20479 of 2021, so as to contend that the co-accused had been enlarged on bail by this Court and thus the applicant is also entitled for the parity and the benefit so bestowed to him.
Countering the above submission, learned AGA has opposed the bail, but could not dispute the factum that the applicant had been bailed out in the aforesaid case, as referred to above. In nutshell, the argument of the learned A.G.A is to the extent that in case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he should be saddled with heavy surety.
Looking into the nature of the offence, there are no chances of accused fleeing from justice and period of detention in jail, without expressing any opinion on the merits, this case is found to be a fit case for bail.
Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation (Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.
In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.
Let the applicant- Aarif involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and a heavy surety of Rs.1,50,000/- to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(v) Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Any 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 :- 21.12.2021 N.S.Rathour