Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1811 (ALL)

Mohd. Aslam v. State of U. P.

2014-06-02

ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA I

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. By means of the present application, the applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.31 of 2014 under Sections 387, 467, 468, 471, 420, 120-B, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Mehnagar, District Azamgarh. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in this case, the applicant is not named in the first information report. His name came to light during the course of the investigation by the co-accused Sanjay on 14.02.2014. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that because of non-mentioning of the applicant's name in the first information report, test identification ought to have been conducted but the same has not been conducted. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 06.02.2014 whereas the first information report was lodged on 12.02.2014. The applicant claims that he did not commit any offence as alleged against him. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the co-accused Gufran Ahmad and Harikesh Yadav have already been granted bail by the Court vide orders dated 22.05.2014 and 29.05.2014 in criminal misc. bail applications no.17754 of 2014 and 18499 of 2014 respectively. The case of the applicant stands on similar footing to that of co-accused persons who have already been admitted to bail. The applicant is in jail since 17.02.2014. 6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and he has submitted that the name of the applicant came to light by one of the co-accused persons who has detailed as to how offence was committed. Apart from the fact, a number of the accused persons have been said to be involved in this case. However learned AGA conceded the fact that co-accused Gufran Ahmad and Harikesh Yadav have already been admitted to bail. 7. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the allegations made in the FIR and all other material available on record, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant Mohd. 7. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the allegations made in the FIR and all other material available on record, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the applicant Mohd. Aslam involved in Case Crime No.31 of 2014 under Sections 387, 467, 468, 471, 420, 120-B, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Mehnagar, District Azamgarh be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: - 1. The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial 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. 9. It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted. 10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.