1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2023
  6. /
  7. January

Mohd. Maz @ Faizi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|13 April, 2023
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant inF.I.R. No. 420 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Paliya, District Lakhimpur Kheri with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.
The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant are that the applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case and is in jail since 24.07.2022. It is further submitted that the applicant was also implicated in one other case, detail of which, is given in para 18 of the bail application. The case of the applicant is similar to co-accused Ehtesham Ali @ Khursheed, who has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11556 of 2022. In these circumstances, the applicant is also entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Photocopy of the bail order of co-accused Ehtesham Ali @ Khursheed provided by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant, but fairly concedes that similarly situated co-accused Ehtesham Ali @ Khursheed has already been granted bail.
Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., ground of parity with the co-accused and going through the material available on record as well as totality of fact and circumstances, I am of the view that it is a fit case for bail. Application stands allowed on the ground of parity.
Let applicant -Mohd. Maz @ Faizi be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 420 of 2022, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(1) 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.
(2) 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 office or tamper with the evidence.
(3) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(4) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.
(5) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.
(6) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 13.4.2023 VKS
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
  • Rajeev Singh