Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9824 of 2013 Applicant :- Mehandi Hasan @ Dablu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kr. Srivastava,Ajay Kumar Mishra,Sandeep Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Birendra Singh,Hemant Kumar,Surendra Singh
Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J.
Sri Sandeep Srivastava learned counsel for the applicant is present and he has drawn the attention of this Court to the earlier order of this Court dated 07.9.2016 which is reproduced below:-
"Sri Surendra Singh, learned counsel for the first informant has sent illness slip today. At this stage, Sri Sandeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant has intervened and submitted that one of the counsel for the first informant, Sri Hemant Kumar is already representing him.
Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted that apart from that, name of another counsel for the first informant, Sri Birendra Singh also figures and Sri Surendra Singh, who has sent illness slip, happens to be third counsel for the first informant. The plight of the applicant is that the applicant is languishing in jail since 22.07.2012 and he has moved this bail application in the year 2013 and because of illness slip, his case is not being considered. In this case, two accused persons Kallu Ahmad and Mangla Prasad Pandey have been admitted to bail by this Court.
In this view of the matter, list this case on 15.09.2016.
However, it is clarified that in case illness slip is sent by any of one of the learned counsel for the first informant, the case will not be adjourned on that ground. "
Today Sri Birendra Singh learned counsel for the informant has sent his illness slip.
From the aforesaid facts it appears that three learned counsel appearing for the informant keep sending illness one by one so that the bail is not heard, however, in view of aforesaid order of this Court, this matter is being taken up.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is neither named in the F.I.R. nor in the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but only on account of suspicion and showing false recovery of ornaments, the applicant's name has been inserted without there being any cogent evidence to connect the applicant with the commission of the alleged offence. It is further contended that the articles shown to have been recovered do not match the articles which were said to have been taken away nor there is any independent witness of the said recovery, which itself falsifies the prosecution case with regard to alleged recovery shown to be made against the applicant. It is thus, argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is next contended that there are no chances of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. It is further contended that the applicant has no criminal history and the applicant is in jail since 22.7.2012 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
It is lastly contended that the co-accused who were the main accused namely Kallu Ahmad and Mangla Prasad have already been enlarged on bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.3.2014 and 31.7.2014 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 26505 of 2012 and 24101 of 2014, copy of which orders have been appended as annexure S.A.-9 and S.A.-10 to the supplementary affidavit dated 23.8.2016 which is on record.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, let the applicant Mehandi Hasan @ Dablu, involved in case crime No.272 of 2011, under Sections 394, 302, 411 IPC, police station Meja, District Allahabad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned on the following conditions that:-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;
2. The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;
3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
4. The applicant shall appear on 15th of every month before the police station concerned to show his good conduct and behaviour.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the order granting bail shall automatically stand cancelled.
Order Date :- 26.4.2018 faraz