# Mahfooz v. State of U.P. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 731
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-18
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 4769 of 2022
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahfooz-v-state-of-u-p-opp-party-52278
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302 & 120-B - Modification
application - By way of application,
applicant seeking modification of order, in
spite of having been ordered to be
released on bail, he couldn't be released
on bail, as whosoever comes forward to
stand surety for release of applicant, is
threatened by police - Two sureties filed
bail bonds, but when it reached police
station
for
verification,
they
were
threatened by police, they withdraw their
sureties - Held, order for release of
applicant on bail was passed way back on
26.05.2023, the applicant couldn't secure
his release for a period of more than one
year - During this long period, the
Superintendent of Jail has not sent any
information to Secretary, DLSA and also
Secretary, DLSA has not deputed any para
legal volunteer to interact and assist him
for his release - Violation of directions
issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Policy
Strategy for Grant of Bail, In re - Thus,
applicant was ordered to be released on
bail upon submission of a personal bond
to satisfaction of trial Court, without any
other surety. (Para 2, 5, 7)

Bail application allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In re, 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 483
732 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

7 All. Mahfooz Vs. State of U.P.
731
method of dispute resolution. When an
arbitrator passes an award correctly based
on the law in existence at the time of the
proceedings, the said findings cannot be
held to be patently illegal on the ground of
a subsequent Apex Court ruling. Holding
such a finding to be patently illegal would
in fact be against the public policy of India.

29. In light of the above, Issue No. 2
is answered as follows:

"Given that the Arbitration in the
instant case concluded on December 11,
2008 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's
judgment in Tarsem Singh (supra) was
delivered later, the Appellant cannot be
allowed to claim solatium or interest on
account of Tarsem Singh (supra)."

CONCLUSION AND DIRECTION

30. In light of the aforesaid discussion
and law, it becomes apparent that the
judgment of the Learned Lower Court
dated
October
21,
2022
cannot
be
sustained. Furthermore, the Arbitral Award
dated December 11, 2008 suffers from
patent illegality as far as non-consideration
of the compensation for land is concerned
and is accordingly set aside to that limited
extent only. The instant matter is remitted
back to the Arbitrator with a direction to
recalculate the compensation to be paid to
the Appellant for land in accordance with
the law.

31. With the above directions, the
instant appeal under Section 37 of the Act
is disposed of. There shall be no order as to
the costs.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 731
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.07.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 4769 of 2022

Mahfooz ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Vijay Pratap Singh, Nagendra Mohan, Vivek
Pandey

Counsel for the Opp. Party:
G.A., Masood Ali, Sushil Kumar Singh

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 302 & 120-B - Modification
application - By way of application,
applicant seeking modification of order, in
spite of having been ordered to be
released on bail, he couldn't be released
on bail, as whosoever comes forward to
stand surety for release of applicant, is
threatened by police - Two sureties filed
bail bonds, but when it reached police
station
for
verification,
they
were
threatened by police, they withdraw their
sureties - Held, order for release of
applicant on bail was passed way back on
26.05.2023, the applicant couldn't secure
his release for a period of more than one
year - During this long period, the
Superintendent of Jail has not sent any
information to Secretary, DLSA and also
Secretary, DLSA has not deputed any para
legal volunteer to interact and assist him
for his release - Violation of directions
issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Policy
Strategy for Grant of Bail, In re - Thus,
applicant was ordered to be released on
bail upon submission of a personal bond
to satisfaction of trial Court, without any
other surety. (Para 2, 5, 7)

Bail application allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, In re, 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 483
732 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

(I.A.
No.9
of
2024-modification
application)

1. This is an application seeking
modification of the order dated 26.05.2023
passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.4769 of 2022, whereby the
applicant was ordered to be released on bail
in Case Crime No.02 of 2022, under
Sections 302, 120-B IPC, Police Station
Tulsipur, District Balrampur, subject to the
conditions that the applicant be released on
bail on furnishing a personal bond and two
sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned.

2. It has been stated in the
application seeking modification of the
order that in spite of having been ordered to
be released on bail, the applicant could not
be released on bail as whosoever comes
forward to stand surety for release of the
applicant, is threatened by the police. Two
sureties namely, Saud Ahmad and Saad
Imani had filed bail bonds but when the
bail bonds reached the police station for
verification, those persons were threatened
by the police and they wrote applications
withdrawing their sureties.

3. The applicant has stated that he
is ready to deposit cash amount in lieu of
sureties.

4. In Policy Strategy for Grant of
Bail, In re, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 483, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued the
following directions: -

 "1) The Court which grants bail
to an undertrial prisoner/convict would be
required to send a soft copy of the bail
order by e-mail to the prisoner through the
Jail Superintendent on the same day or the
next day. The Jail Superintendent would be
required to enter the date of grant of bail in
the e-prisons software [or any other
software which is being used by the Prison
Department].

 2) If the accused is not released
within a period of 7 days from the date of
grant of bail, it would be the duty of the
Superintendent of Jail to inform the
Secretary, DLSA who may depute para
legal volunteer or jail visiting advocate to
interact with the prisoner and assist the
prisoner in all ways possible for his
release.

 3) NIC would make attempts to
create necessary fields in the e-prison
software so that the date of grant of bail and
date of release are entered by the Prison
Department and in case the prisoner is not
released within 7 days, then an automatic
email can be sent to the Secretary, DLSA.

 4) The Secretary, DLSA with a view
to find out the economic condition of the
accused, may take help of the Probation
Officers or the Para Legal Volunteers to
prepare a report on the socio-economic
conditions of the inmate which may be placed
before the concerned Court with a request to
relax the condition(s) of bail /surety.

 5) In cases where the undertrial or
convict requests that he can furnish bail bond
or sureties once released, then in an
appropriate case, the Court may consider
granting temporary bail for a specified
period to the accused so that he can furnish
bail bond or sureties.

 6) If the bail bonds are not
furnished within one month from the date
of grant bail, the concerned Court may
7 All. Sanjaya Dikshit Vs. C.B.I.
733
suo moto take up the case and consider
whether the conditions of bail require
modification/relaxation.

 7) One of the reasons which
delays the release of the accused/convict is
the insistence upon local surety. It is
suggested that in such cases, the courts
may not impose the condition of local
surety."

(Emphasis added)

 11. We order that the aforesaid
directions shall be complied with."

5. The order for release of the
applicant on bail was passed way back on
26.05.2023 and in spite of an order passed
by this Court for his release, the applicant
could not secure his release for a period of
more than one year. It appears that during
this long period of more than one year, the
Superintendent of Jail has not sent any
information of this fact to the Secretary,
DLSA and consequently the Secretary
DLSA has also not deputed any para legal
volunteer or jail visiting advocate to
interact with the applicant and assist him
for his release, which inaction is a violation
of the directions issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Policy Strategy for
Grant of Bail, In re (Supra).

6. Keeping in view the fact that the
applicant was ordered to be released on bail
on 26.05.2023 and he could not be released
for want of sureties even after expiry of
more than one year, it appears to be just
that the condition for submission of two
sureties imposed in the order dated
26.05.2023 be revoked.

7. Accordingly, the order dated
26.05.2023 is modified to the extent that
the applicant shall be released on bail upon
submission of a personal bond to the
satisfaction of the trial Court, without
submission of any other surety. The other
conditions of the order dated 26.05.2023
passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.4769 of 2022 shall remain the same.

8. The Registrar Compliance of
this Court is directed to ensure circulation
of the directions issued by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Policy Strategy for
Grant of Bail, In re, 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 483 amongst the Presiding Officers of
the District Courts through the District
Judges and amongst the Police and Jail
Authorities through the Additional Chief
Secretary - Home, Government of Uttar
Pradesh to ensure proper compliance of the
same.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 733
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 529 of 2024

Sanjaya Dikshit ...Revisionist
Versus
C.B.I. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Chandra Bhushan Pandey, Sri Asim
Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri Anurag Kumar Singh

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973-Section 397/401- Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988-Section 19-FIR
lodged against the revisionist with the
allegation that Rs, 6 lacs was paid to the