Allowed

Seraj Alam v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Oct 2018BAIL/25522/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to the applicant, Seraj Alam, against whom FIR was registered under IPC sections 295A, 504, 505(1)(B) and IT Act Section 67 for insulting the Chief Minister. The court emphasized the nature of accusation, severity of punishment, and risk of witness tampering while invoking Article 21 and a Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond, two sureties (one family member), cooperation in trial, no tampering, no unlawful activities, and verification of sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 55 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25522 of 2018

¶2

Applicant :- Seraj Alam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his prayer for bail submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due collusion of local leader and he has committed no offence. It is next contended that the applicant has never addicting the photographs of the Chief Minister. It is further contended that there is no criminal history against the applicant. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 3.6.2018.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶7

Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge and reformative theory of punishment, and also considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶8

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case let the applicant Seraj Alam, involved in Case Crime No.199 of 2018, under sections 295A, 504, 505(1)(B) I.P.C and 67 I.T Act, P.S. Nichlaul, District- Maharajganj be released on bail on his

¶9

furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each having sureties (One should be of his family member) in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶10

(1)The applicant will co-operate with the trail and remain present personally on each and every date fixed after release.

¶11

(ii) The applicant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

¶12

(iii) The applicant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.

¶13

(iv) The applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever.The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicants to prison.

¶14

(v) The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the present case and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶15

Order Date :- 22.10.2018 G.S

Seraj Alam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seraj Alam 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gahma @ Gahma Nath Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Pathak Vs State of U.P.

Murad Vs State of U.P.

Shivsaran Vs State of U.P.

Rajat @ Bijli Vs State of U.P.

Mohit Vs State of U.P.