Allahabad High Court
Chand And Another vs State Of U.P. on 4 November, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36308 of 2022 Applicant :- Chand and another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ambreen Masroor,Sadrul Islam Jafri,Syed Ahmad Naseem Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Ambreen Masroor and Sri Syed Ahmad Naseem, Advocates, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Manish Goyal, the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.176 of 2022, under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147,148, 149, 153-A, 153-B, 295-A, 307, 332, 336, 353, 435, 427, 504, 505(2), 506 and 120-B IPC, along with Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 along with Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932 along with Section 83 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Act, 2015 along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984 Police Station- Kareli, District - Prayagraj during pendency of the trial in the Court below.
3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 11.06.2022 at 08:56 hours against eleven named accused persons, not including the applicants, and more than 250 unknown persons, alleging that after offering Namaz in Masjid on 10.06.2022 a mob consisting of miscreants started throwing bombs and stones creating terror in the public at large. The accused persons involved minor children in the incident and they put several vehicles to fire and damaged public properties so as to disrupt communal harmony.
4. The F.I.R. mentions the names of eleven persons who had been identified by the Sub Inspector who lodged the F.I.R. and some other persons of the Police present there. Rest more than 250 persons could not be identified by the time of lodging of the F.I.R.
5. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Both the applicants were arrested on 11.06.2022. The applicant No. 1 claims that he was arrested while he was working at his shop situated at Ghantaghar whereas the applicant No. 2 was arrested on 11.06.2022 at 9:00 p.m. when he had gone to pick up his father from the place where he was working as a Home Guard. It has categorically been stated in the affidavit that no weapon of crime or any incriminating material was recovered from the possession of the applicants or from their pointing out and the applicants have not been seen participating in the alleged offence in any C.C.T.V. footage.
6. The State has filed a counter affidavit objecting against the applicants' prayer for being released on bail.
7. In paragraph No. 7 of the affidavit, it has been stated that the accused persons were recognized/identified by the Beat-in-charge who was on duty in the locality where the riot took place. Although several statements recorded during investigation have been annexed with the counter affidavit, the statement of the Beat-in-charge has not been annexed.
8. Sub Inspector Ayodhya Prasad Mishra has stated that he was present at the time of the incident and he Sub Inspector Raj Bahadur Yadav, and other Police persons had identified as many as 37 accused persons, including both the applicants. However, in the statements of other witnesses, namely, Chowki Incharge Ayodhya Prasad Mishra, Constable Ajeet Kumar, Sub Inspector Lal Bharat Yadav, Incharge Inspector Anurag Sharma, Constable Shivam Agrawal, independent witness Umesh Chandra Jaiswal, injured Kamlesh Kumar Yadav and Amit Gupta annexed with the counter affidavit, the applicants have not been named.
9. It has been specifically been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case and both the applicants have no prior criminal history and after their arrest in the present case, they have been implicated in two more cases regarding the same incident in respect of the riots held in the District Allahabad on the same day.
10. Sri N.I. Jafri, the learned Senior Advocate has placed before the Court copies of the bail orders passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 40228 of 2022 (Faizan Vs. State of U.P. and another) and Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34747 of 2022 (Aashif Vs. State of U.P.), both of which relate to the same incident. His submission is that the co-accused Faizan has been named in the F.I.R. as also in the statement of the witnesses. His submission is that the case of the applicants stands on a better footing as the applicants are not named in the F.I.R.
11. Sri Manish Goyal, the learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the applicants are not entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity because the order granting bail to Faizan was passed without any opportunity of having been given to the State to file a counter affidavit.
12. I have considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. What prima facie appears from the record available before this Court is that the applicants are not named in the F.I.R.; that the averment made in the affidavit that the applicants have not been identified by any C.C.T.V. footage, has not been disputed in the counter affidavit; that although it is alleged that the Beat Incharge had identified the accused persons the statement of the Beat-in-charge has not been annexed with the counter affidavit and most of the witnesses have not mentioned the names of the applicants. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and also keeping in view the fact that the other two accused persons have already been granted bail in the present case whereas the applicants are languishing in jail since 11.06.2022, coupled with the fact that both the applicants have no criminal history, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts make out a case for enlargement of the applicants on bail.
13. In light of the preceding discussion and without making any observation on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.
14. Let the applicants Chand and Akram be released on bail in Case Crime No.176 of 2022, under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147,148, 149, 153-A, 153-B, 295-A, 307, 332, 336, 353, 435, 427, 504, 505(2), 506 and 120-B IPC, along with Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 along with Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1932 along with Section 83 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)Act, 2015 along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act, 1984 Police Station- Kareli, District - Prayagraj on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The applicants will not influence any witness.
(iii) The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
15. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.
Order Date :- 4.11.2022 Jaswant