Allahabad High Court
Mumshad Ali @ Bunty vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 February, 2023
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29342 of 2022 Applicant :- Mumshad Ali @ Bunty Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Najam Uz Zaman Khan,Prabha Shanker Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,S.S. Rajput Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
List revised.
Heard Sri Prabha Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S. S. Rajput, learned counsel for the first informant and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Mumshad Ali @ Bunty, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 345 of 2021, under Sections 326-A IPC, registered at P.S. Gandhi Park, District Aligarh.
This is the second bail application of the applicant.
The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.02.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 47028/2021 (Mumshad Ali @ Bunty vs. State of U.P. and another).
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the injured Tazim Ahmad was produced as PW-2 before the trial court who in his statement therein stated that co-accused Amil Hussain threw a pouch filled with acid on him which hit on his face and he sustained burning sensation and shouted whereas the applicant Mumshad Ali @ Bunty came forward and threw a pouch of acid on his brother and brother-in-law. It is argued that insofar as the alleged brother and brother-in-law of the injured are concerned, they are not injured in the matter. It is argued that, as such, looking to the statement of injured Tazim Ahmad, the applicant has not been assigned the role of throwing acid on him. It is argued that insofar as co-accused Amil Hussain is concerned, during investigation his implication in the present case was found to be false and he was exonerated by the police. It is argued that the applicant is in jail since 18.08.2021 having no criminal history as stated in paragraph 8 of the affidavit in support of the bail application.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid arguments.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that injured Tazim Ahmad has exonerated the applicant of throwing acid on him which was the initial prosecution case. The role of throwing acid on him has been assigned to co-accused Amil Hussain who has been exonerated by the police during investigation.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, let the applicant Mumshad Ali @ Bunty be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties (one of the sureties of the applicant will be his family member and the other to be of local person) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
i) The applicant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.
ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. 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 I.P.C.
(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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 and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.
(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the applicant.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.
The bail application is allowed.
Order Date :- 22.2.2023 Vijay (Samit Gopal, J.)