Allowed

Nadeem v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Aug 2018BAIL/11584/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An Applicant sought bail citing a history of 114 criminal cases with multiple discharges and acquittals. The court rejected arguments challenging the applicant's presence in the FIR but disposed of the application by granting bail under I.P.C. Sections 457, 380, and 411, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties with specific conditions of control.

Nadeem Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11584 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Nadeem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Irshad Husain,Syed Imran Ibrahim Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The argument is that there are 114 cases in the criminal history of the applicant which have been disclosed in the affidavit in support of the bail application. The applicant has been discharged in 78 cases. In 14 cases he has been acquitted. In 6 cases no charge-sheet filed against him. In 4 cases final report has been submitted and in 7 cases he is on bail. One case has been compounded. Two cases belong to Police station falling in Delhi or New Delhi. In the present case the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and he has been implicated in the District, Ghaziabad falling in the State. Recovery of some Articles have been shown.

¶7

It has been argued by the counsel for the applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the case on the basis of his criminal history in State of Delhi. He is in jail since 27.11.2017.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Let the applicant Nadeem , be released on bail in Case Crime No. 3292 of 2017, under Sections 457, 380, 411 I.P.C, P.S. Sahibabad, District- Ghaziabad on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the

¶11

interest of justice :-

¶12

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶13

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶14

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶15

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶16

Order Date :- 1.8.2018 Rohit

Nadeem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadeem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahipal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Gaur Vs State of U.P.

Ansarullah Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ankush Vs State of U.P.

Atul Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kumar @Guddu Vs State of U.P.