Allowed

Waseem @ Dakhni v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2018BAIL/35867/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a case regarding cow slaughter under the State Act. The court held the applicant was falsely implicated and not arrested at the scene. Bail was subject to filing a bond with two sureties and strict conditions regarding court presence.

What did the court decide?

Bail enlarged on bond of Rs. 1 Lac with two sureties and strict conditions for attendance and non-abuse of liberty of bail.

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

¶1

Court No. - 62

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35867 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Waseem @ Dakhni Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Zakir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mohammad Zakir, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of ulterior motive. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is not named in the FIR and his name has surfaced subsequently on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused and neither the applicant has been arrested from the place of occurrence nor any recovery whatsoever has been made from his possession. There are no reported criminal antecedents against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 01.08.2018.

¶7

Keeping in view the nature of submissions advanced, the applicant is entitled for bail.

¶8

Let, the applicant-Waseem @ Dakhni involved in Case Crime No.366 of 2018, under Section 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Gulavathi, District Bulandshahr be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties (Rs. One Lac each) (One should be of a family member), with the following conditions:-

¶9

(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.

¶10

(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.

¶11

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial

¶12

and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. 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.

¶13

(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 Cr.P.C. 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.

¶14

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail. Order Date :- 26.11.2018 Shahroz

Waseem @ Dakhni v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Waseem @ Dakhni 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

Jarif Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Kaushilya Vs State of U.P. and another

Shivangi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Parvej Vs State of U.P.

Ibrahim Vs State of U.P.

Gopal Verma Vs State of U.P.