Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1812 (ALL)

Mohd. Muzaffar 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 and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. This bail application has been moved in Case Crime No. 90 of 2014 under Section 3 (1) of U.P. Prevention of Anti Social Activities and Gangsters Act, Police Station Aurai, District Sant Ravi Das Nagar (Bhadohi). 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in this case the police has falsely implicated and involved the applicant in false cases and has mentioned three criminal cases against the applicant. In all the three criminal cases, concerning Case Crime No. 124 of 2013 under Sections 302, 307, 333 and 427 IPC, Police Station Aurai, and in Case Crime No. 17 of 2012 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 342 and 304 IPC, Police Station Kokhraj, District Kaushambi and Case Crime No. 223 of 2011 under Sections 147, 323, 504 IPC, Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad the applicant has been granted bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that yet in another case involving case crime NO. 103 of 2006 the applicant has been tried and acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Allahabad vide order dated 2.8.2007. 5. The learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant is a habitual offender and he has become a threat to the society and in order to put check on the applicant it was necessary to initiate proceedings under Gangster Act and action taken is justified. 6. He has further submitted that apart from the cases shown in the gang charge other criminal cases are also pending against the accused applicant as has been admitted by the applicant himself in paragraph No.6 in Bail Case concerning Crime No. 177 of 2007 and in Case Crime No. 321 of 2007. At this stage learned counsel for the applicant retorted by submitting that in Case Crime No. 321 of 2007 and in Case Crime No. 317of 2007 the involvement of the applicant was neither discovered nor established by the evidence collected by the investigating agency and the applicant has nothing to do with these crimes as mentioned. At this stage learned counsel for the applicant retorted by submitting that in Case Crime No. 321 of 2007 and in Case Crime No. 317of 2007 the involvement of the applicant was neither discovered nor established by the evidence collected by the investigating agency and the applicant has nothing to do with these crimes as mentioned. He has further submitted that as per the instructions obtained by the prosecution even the applicant has no role to play in the aforesaid offences, therefore, the same be not considered at this stage against the applicant. 7. Considering the above submissions, nature of accusation and nature of gravity and severity of punishment, in case of conviction, nature of evidence available on record and the averments regarding bail of applicant in the matter of crime numbers disclosed in the police chart, in my considered opinion the applicant is entitled for bail. 8. Let the applicant-Mohd. Muzzafar involved in the 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 with the following conditions: - 1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/Pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. 2. He will cooperate in the trial bonafidely without seeking adjournments. 3. He shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. 9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.