Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4163 of 2018 Appellant :- Haidar Ali Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
According to learned A.G.A. notice has been served personally on opposite party no.2-Prahlad on 4.8.2018, but none is present on behalf of the complainant.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This criminal appeal has been filed against order dated 05.07.2018, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2 S.C./S.T. Act, Kaushambi in Bail Application No. 69 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 36 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)V, 3(2)VA, 3(1)D SC/ST Act, Police Station Kokhraj, District Kaushambi, whereby bail application of the appellant was rejected.
According to the prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged against seven known accused persons namely Tauheed, Vahid, Haidar, Parvez, Zaved, Mohd. Haroon, Mohd. Tufail and some unknown persons alleging that on 16.01.2018 they assaulted Sultan due to which he received injuries.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that co-accused Mohd. Tufail, Mohd. Haroon, Tauheed and Vahid have already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 15.05.2018, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1854 of 2018 by coordinate Bench of this Court. The case of this accused is identical to the case of aforesaid co-accused, hence on the ground of parity the present accused appellant is also entitled to bail. It has further been submitted that there is no independent witness of the said incident. No offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and under SC/ST Act has been made against the present accused. He is languishing in jail since 3.3.2018 (near about six months); having no criminal history and if he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and he will co-operate in the trial.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but has not disputed the parity and admitted that the appellant has no criminal history.
For the foregoing discussions, facts of the case nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 05.07.2018 rejecting the bail of the appellant is hereby set aside.
Let the appellant-Haidar Ali involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-
(i). The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii). The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii). The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
(v) 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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 28.8.2018 OP