Allowed

Kaleem v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2018BAIL/29861/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a bail application filed by Kaleem, who was charged with running an unlicensed medical store. The applicant was detained from June 24, 2018, with no prior criminal history. The Court invoked bail jurisprudence to grant bail subject to bonding and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

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

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 29861 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Kaleem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jamaluddin Mohd. Nasir 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.

¶6

The allegation against the applicant is that he was running medical store without valid licence. The applicant is in jail since 24.6.2018 and has no criminal history to his credit.

¶7

On the other hand learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶9

Let the applicant Kaleem involved in Case Crime No.237 of 2018, under Section 420 I.P.C. & 18-C/27 of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, Police Station Thana Bhawan, District Shamli 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶10

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶11

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶12

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶13

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶14

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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.

¶16

Order Date :- 8.8.2018 T. Sinha

Kaleem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaleem 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

Sharavan Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Daluwa Vs State of U.P.

Ahiduddin Vs State of U.P.

Amar Nath Jha Vs State of U.P.

Bakir and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sameer @ Noore Alam Vs State of U.P.