# Imran v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 4
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16539 of 2021
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Pachori
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/imran-v-state-of-u-p-46565
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 -Sections 147, 148, 149,
307, 34 & 414 - Constitution of India -
Article 21 - refusal of bail is a restriction
on the personal liberty of the individual
guaranteed
under
Article
21
of
the
Constitution - bail is the rule and
committal to jail is an exception .(Para -
9)

Sub-Inspector - on patrolling duty - got
information from informer - few persons
involved in the activities of cow slaughtering -
police party reached the spot - all accused
persons started firing upon the police party -
saving
themselves,
arrested
co-accused
-
recovered slaughtering instruments - hence
application for bail.

HELD:-The basic rule may perhaps be tersely
put as bail, not jail, except where there are
circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice
or thwarting the course of justice or creating
other troubles in the shape of repeating
offences or intimidating witnesses and the like,
by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail
from the court . (Para - 9)

Bail application allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

4 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(i) The applicant will not tamper
with the evidence during the trial.

(ii)
The
applicant
will
not
pressurize/
intimidate
the
prosecution
witness.

(iii) The applicant shall not
directly or indirectly make any 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
or to any police officer or tamper with the
evidence.

(iv) The applicant shall file an
undertaking to the effect that he shall not
seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

(v) The applicant shall remain
present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through his
counsel. In case of his absence, without
sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed
against him under Section 229-A of the
Indian Penal Code.

(vi) 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. is issued and the
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 of the Indian Penal Code.
----------
(2021)12ILR A4
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16539 of
2021

Imran ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Rajeev Kumar Rai

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 -Sections 147, 148, 149,
307, 34 & 414 - Constitution of India -
Article 21 - refusal of bail is a restriction
on the personal liberty of the individual
guaranteed
under
Article
21
of
the
Constitution - bail is the rule and
committal to jail is an exception .(Para -
9)

Sub-Inspector - on patrolling duty - got
information from informer - few persons
involved in the activities of cow slaughtering -
police party reached the spot - all accused
persons started firing upon the police party -
saving
themselves,
arrested
co-accused
-
recovered slaughtering instruments - hence
application for bail.

HELD:-The basic rule may perhaps be tersely
put as bail, not jail, except where there are
circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice
or thwarting the course of justice or creating
other troubles in the shape of repeating
offences or intimidating witnesses and the like,
by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail
from the court . (Para - 9)

Bail application allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs St. of Mah.,
(2021) 2 SCC 427

2. St. of Raj. Vs Balchand @ Baliay, (1977) 4
SCC 308
11 All. Imran Vs. State of U.P.
5
3. Gudikanti Narasimhulu & ors. Vs Public Prosecutor,
High Court Of A.P., AIR 1978 SC 429

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.)

1. Heard, Sri Rajeev Kumar Rai, learned
counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the material on record.

2. The present bail application has been
filed on behalf of applicant Imran under Section
439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, with a
prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.
936 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307,
34, 414 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at
Police Station Dadri District Gautam Budh
Nagar, during pendency of the trial.

3. Brief facts of the case as unfolded from
the First Information Report is that on
26.12.2020 at 21.00 hours, Sub-Inspector
Narendra Sharma was on the patrolling duty, he
got information from the informer that a car is
standing behind the Children Academy on an
open place and few persons involved in the
activities of cow slaughtering. The police party
reached at the spot, after seeing the police, all
accused persons started firing upon the police
party, saving themselves, arrested co-accused
Mehtab at 00.30 hours on 27.12.2020, and
recovered
slaughtering
instruments
from
unnumbered Honda City Car, five other
miscreants fled away taking benefit of darkness.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel
for the applicant that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the present
case due to ulterior motive. The FIR of the
present case has been lodged on false and
frivolous allegations on the basis of planted
recovery. The applicant has not been arrested
from the spot. He has been implicated in the
present case on the basis of confessional
statement of co-accused Mehtab. This is police
encounter no injury case. It is further submitted
that the applicant has no concern with the coaccused Mehtab. No incriminating article has
been recovered from the possession or pointing
out of the applicant, no prima facie case is made
out against the applicant. The applicant has
surrendered before the court on 1.2.2021. The
applicant has been implicated in 14 other
criminal cases, which all were registered at P.S.
Dadri District Gautam Budh Nagar, detail
descriptions are as follows:

Sr. No. Case Crime
No.
Sections
Description
1.
92 of 2006
5/6 of U. P.
Prevention
of
Cow Slaughter
Act.

No witness has
been
examined
till today.
2.
103 of 2007 302 of I.P.C.

Acquitted by trial
court.
3.
 148 of 2007 4/25 Arms Act. Acquitted by trial
court.
4.
342 of 2007

3(2)
of
National
Security
Act.

lapsed
after
acquittal in case
no. 103 of 2007
5.
132 of 2008

452, 504, 506
of
IPC.

No witness has
been
examined
till today.
6.
664 of 2008 110
G
of
Cr.PC.
lapsed.
7.
915 of 2018

8/20 of NDPS
Act.
No witness has
been
examined
till today.
8.
10 of 2019
307, 504, 506
of IPC
No injury case.
9.
275 of 2020 188, 269, 270
of IPC and 11
of
Prevention
of Cruelty to
Animals Act.

10.
338 of 2020 188, 269, 270
of IPC and 11
of
Prevention
of Cruelty to
Animals Act.

11.
352 of 2020 188, 269, 270
of IPC and 3/11
6 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of
Prevention
of Cruelty to
Animals Act.
12.
416 of 2020 188, 269, 270
of IPC and 11
of
Prevention
of Cruelty to
Animals Act.

13.
928 of 2020 3/5
of
U.P.
Prevention
of
Cow Slaughter
Act.
Implicated on the
basis
of
confessional
statement
14.
482 of 2021 2/3 of U. P.
Gangsters
&
Anti
Social
Activities
(Prevention)
Act.
Not applied for
bail.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant next
submitted that the applicant has been acquitted
in two cases (Sr. No. 2 and 3), two cases (Sr.
No. 4 and 6) in which proceedings have been
lapsed after acquittal in case at Sr. No.2, he has
no criminal antecedent during the period of 2008
to 2018 and the applicant has been implicated in
10 other criminal cases out of 14 cases by the
police of same police station, which are not
heinous in nature. The applicant has been
granted bail in all the cases except one case Sr.
No. 14. The applicant has not undergone any
imprisonment after conviction by any court in
respect of any offence.

6. It is further submitted that co-accused
Furkan, Mehraj, Irshad and Mehtab, having
similar criminal antecedent, have been granted
bail by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court
vide orders dated 22.7.2021, 2.8.2021, 3.9.2021
and
11.8.2021
in
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application Nos. 16512 of 2021, 21946 of 2021,
16991 of 2021 and 29317 of 2021 respectively.
Copies of bail orders have been annexed as
Annexure RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit. It is
next contended that there is no possibility of the
applicant either fleeing away from the judicial
process or tampering with the witnesses. The
applicant is languishing in jail since 1.2.2021,
undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if
granted. It has also been pointed out that in the
wake of heavy pendency of cases in the court,
there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of
trial.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed
the prayer of bail and submitted that the
applicant is a hardened criminal and having long
criminal history. After collecting sufficient
credible evidence against the applicant and other
co-accused charge sheet has been submitted. In
case the applicant is released on bail, he will
again indulge in similar activities and will
misuse the liberty of bail.

8. The duty of the Courts with regard to the
liberty of citizen has been considered by the
Supreme
Court
in
Arnab
Manoranjan
Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 2
SCC 427, wherein it was observed thus:

"67...Courts must be alive to the need
to safeguard the public interest in ensuring that
the due enforcement of criminal law is not
obstructed. The fair investigation of crime is an
aid to it. Equally it is the duty of courts across
the spectrum - the district judiciary, the High
Courts and the Supreme Court - to ensure that
the criminal law does not become a weapon for
the selective harassment of citizens. Courts
should be alive to both ends of the spectrum -
the need to ensure the proper enforcement of
criminal law on the one hand and the need, on
the other, of ensuring that the law does not
become a ruse for targeted harassment. Liberty
across human eras is as tenuous as tenuous can
be. Liberty survives by the vigilance of her
citizens, on the cacophony of the media and in
the dusty corridors of courts alive to the rule of
(and not by) law. Yet, much too often, liberty is a
casualty when one of these components is found
wanting.

70. More than four decades ago, in a
celebrated judgment in State of Rajasthan v.
11 All. Imran Vs. State of U.P.
7
Balchand1 Krishna Iyer, J. pithily reminded us
that the basic rule of our criminal justice system
is "bail is not jail"2. The High Courts and courts
in the district judiciary of India must enforce
this principle in practice, and forego that duty,
leaving this Court to intervene at all times. We
must in particular also emphasise the role of the
district judiciary, which provides the first point
of interface to the citizen. Our district judiciary
is wrongly referred to as the "subordinate
judiciary". It may be subordinate in hierarchy
but it is not subordinate in terms of its
importance in the lives of citizens or in terms of
the duty to render justice to them...."

9. It is settled position of law that bail is
the rule and committal to jail is an exception
in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs.
Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, the
Apex Court observed that refusal of bail is a
restriction on the personal liberty of the
individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution and opined in para 2 "The basic
rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not
jail, except where there are circumstances
suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting
the course of justice or creating other troubles
in the shape of repeating offences or
intimidating witnesses and the like, by the
petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from
the court. We do not intend to be exhaustive
but only illustrative" and considering the facts
of the present case and keeping in mind, the
ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case
of Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors vs
Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra
Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, larger mandate
of Article 21 of the constitution of India, the
nature of accusations, the nature of evidence
in support thereof, the severity of punishment
which conviction will entail, the character of
the accused-applicant, circumstances which
are peculiar to the accused, reasonable
possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension
of the witnesses being tampered with, the
larger interest of the public/State and other
circumstances, but without expressing any
opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it
is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the
present bail application is allowed.

10. Let applicant, Imran be released on
bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his
furnishing a personal bond and two reliable
sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction
of the court concerned with the following
conditions-

(i) The applicant shall not directly or
indirectly make any 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 or to any police officer or
tamper with the evidence.

(ii)
The
applicant
shall
not
pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii)
The
applicant
shall
remain
present, in person, before the trial court on the
dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii)
framing of charge and (iii) recording of
statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

(iv) The applicant shall file an
undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek
any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence
when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

(v) The applicant shall remain present
before the trial court on each date fixed, either
personally or through his counsel.

11. In case of breach of any of the above
conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation
of bail. It is clarified that anything said in this
order is limited to the purpose of determination
of this bail application and will in no way be
construed as an expression on the merits of the
case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to
arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis
of evidence led unaffected by anything said in
this order.
8 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. The party shall file computer generated
copy of such order downloaded from the official
website of High Court Allahabad, self attested
by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity
proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar
Card) mentioning the mobile number to which
the said Aadhar Card is linked.

13. 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.
----------
(2021)12ILR A8
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.

Criminal Misc. 1st Bail Application No. 32726 of 2021

Lalit Gupta ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Shrikrishna Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

(A)
Criminal
Law
-
Narcotic
Drugs
and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections
8/20 &50 - "obscura nubes dubiorum" (under
the dark cloud of doubts) - "GIVE A DOG BAD
NAME AND SHOOT HIM" - Uttar Pradesh Excise
Act,1910 - Section 60 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - SECTION 82 , 174-A , 229.

Informant (Sub Inspector ) and co-accused - to burst
a bigger racket dealing in psychotropic substance -
accused indicated a person sitting over culvert - deals
with psychotropic substance - nabbed accused himself
disclosed that plastic gunny bag contains cannabis
(Ganja) - total recovery is 29.600 Kgs. of cannabis in
four packets - carried by applicant without any valid
license - bail application rejected by Additional District
&
Sessions
Judge/F.T.C.-2
-
Hence
this
bail
application.(Para - 5,6)

HELD:-Entire modus oprendi adopted by the police,
wherein the applicant has been lifted from his
residence and planted in the present case, puts the
entire prosecution story doubtful. Entire arrest is
flimsy, fallacious and based on a make-believe theory.
Alleged seizure of psychotropic substance too is a
doubtful proposition and makes entire prosecution
story as a malicious prosecution and the arrest an
illegal one. (Para - 11,12)

Bail application allowed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Shrikrishna Shukla, learned
counsel for the applicant; Shri M.C. Chaturvedi,
learned A.A.G., assisted by Shri S.K. Pal,
learned G.A. and Shri Ghanshyam Kumar,
learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.

2. Pleadings are exchanged between the
parties and the matter is ripe for final
submissions on merit.

3. Personal appearance of all the police
officials pursuant to the earlier order of this
Court dated 15.11.2021 is hereby exempted.

4. By means of the present bail application
the applicant, who is facing prosecution in
connection with Case Crime No.0356 of 2021,
u/s 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, P.S.-Phase-2, DistrictGautam Budh Nagar, is seeking his enlargement
on bail during trial. The applicant is in jail since
14.6.2021.

5. Shri Shrikrishna Shukla, learned counsel
for the applicant has drawn attention of the
Court to the F.I.R. lodged by the Sub Inspector
Ram Chandra Singh, P.S. Phase-II, NOIDA of
Gautam Budh Nagar Commissionerate on
14.6.2021 at 13.34 hours against the lone named