The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to a person, who was arrested during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Bill in Uttar Pradesh.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Manish Mathur passed this order, while hearing a Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application filed by Haseen alias Ishu.
The bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 336, 307, 188, 427, 34, 109, 302, 120B IPC; Section 3/4 Prevention of the Damage to Public Property Act, 1984; Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1944 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Babupurwa, District Kanpur Nagar, during the pendency of trial.
It urged that the applicant was innocent. As per the bail application, an FIR was lodged against only eight nominated persons, while around 4000-5000 unknown persons allegedly participated in the ruckus, which took place on December 20, 2019 at Kanpur Nagar against the Citizen Amendment Act. Out of eight people, four have been enlarged on bail by the Court, noted the plea.
It further urged that initially, FIR was lodged under Section 307 IPC, thereafter, Section 302 IPC has been added.
It also urged that the applicant was not present at the place of occurrence; there was no motive with regard to the commission of offence; people lost lives due to indiscriminate firing caused by the assailants and by the police; and that there was no criminal antecedent against the applicant.
The applicant has been languishing in jail since August 22, 2020 and in case he was enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail, assured the Counsel of the petitioner.
Co-accused Shahzad alias Sarfraz Alam, Pervez Alam, Mustakeem, Adil, Faizan Mumtaz, Sarwar Alam, Saiyad Abdul Hai Hashmi, Aqeel Ahmad, Mohammad Umar, Mohd Kaseem and Mohd Jameel have been enlarged on bail by coordinate benches of the Court.
The AGA opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the Counsel for the applicant.
“Considering the submissions advanced by the counsel for parties and upon perusal of material available on record, it appears that the applicant has not been named in the FIR and at this stage there does not appear to be any evidence whereby the applicant could be identified as a part of the mob. The previous criminal history has been explained by the applicant in the supplementary affidavit. The applicant has been in jail since 22.08.2020 and it has been submitted that trial has not commenced. Co-accused allegedly having similar roles have been assigned by coordinate benches of the Court as indicated hereinabove”, the Court observed.
The Court ordered, Let the applicant Haseen Alias Ishu involved in aforesaid case 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) 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.
(ii) 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.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 CrPC 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.
(iv) 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 CrPC.
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.