Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2021
  6. /
  7. January

Soumin vs State Of U P

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|29 October, 2021
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14888 of 2021 Applicant :- Soumin Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Imran Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Mohd. Imran Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.441 of 2019, under Sections 396, 412 I.P.C., Police Station Muradnagar, District Ghaziabad during the pendency of trial.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. As per F.I.R., which was lodged by one stranger to the effect that the dead body of somebody was lying roadside. Learned Counsel for the applicant further contends that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R., his name was surfaced on the basis of confessional statements of co-accused, Amir and Kale, who were arrested by the police and from whom a looted truck with cement bags was alleged to have been recovered. It is next contended that the recovery of one country made pistol shown from the possession of the applicant is forged and planted, for which there is no independent witness. It is also contended that as per statement of co-accused, Kale, the role of firing has been assigned to the applicant, which has no evidentiary value in view of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Lastly it is contended that the applicant is in jail since 01.06.2019 having no previous criminal history as stated in paragraph no.21 of the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, insofar as the criminal history of three cases is concerned, all the three cases have been registered against the applicant along with the present case as explained in paragraph no.07 of the rejoinder affidavit and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.
Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.
Let the applicant, Soumin involved in aforesaid crime 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 following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
1. The applicant will attend and co-operate the trial proceedings pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.
2. He will not tamper with the witnesses.
3. He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.
In case of breach of of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 29.10.2021 S.P.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Soumin vs State Of U P

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
29 October, 2021
Judges
  • Rajiv Joshi
Advocates
  • Mohd Imran Khan