Allowed

Bilal v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Aug 2018BAIL/30968/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application, the court granted bail to the applicant charged under Sections 377, 511, 342, 506 IPC and POCSO Act. The court was satisfied after hearing counsel that a personal bond with two sureties sufficed, subject to standard conditions regarding witness tampering and cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Bilal released on bail furnished by a personal bond with two sureties each under Sections 377, 511, 342, 506 IPC and POCSO Act.

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

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30968 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Bilal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Moeez Uddin Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Moeez Uddin, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the first information report was lodged after two days of the incident. The medical report of the victim does not corroborate the prosecution case. He next submitted that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to some ulterior motive. He lastly submitted that the applicant has no criminal history. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.6.2018.

¶7

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

¶8

Considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this

¶9

case.

¶10

Let the applicant Bilal involved in Case Crime No. 156 of 2018, under Sections 377, 511, 342, 506 I.P.C. and section 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Kath, district-Moradabad be released on bail 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.

¶11

The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶12

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶13

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶14

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶15

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶16

Order Date :- 16.8.2018

¶17

Faridul

Bilal v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bilal 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

Satyendra Gudia Vs State of U.P.

Deepanshu Vs State of U.P.

Dharamveer Vs State of U.P.

Mubarak Ali Vs State of U.P.

Shoeb Vs State of U.P.

Ram Babu Vs State of U.P.