Allowed

Zahid @ Lambu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2018BAIL/46744/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Mrs. Rekha Dikshit granted bail to applicant Zahid @ Lambu in CPI Case No. 91 of 2017 involving attempt to murder. The court noted parity with co-accused bail orders and a 5-month jail stay, but noted the applicant's notorious criminal history. Bail granted with personal bond and two heavy sureties of Rs. 3 lakhs each subject to strict conditions to appear in court.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (not less than rupees three lacs) each in the like amount satisfying the court concerned.

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

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46744 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Zahid @ Lambu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shailesh Kumar Srivastava,R K Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Rekha Dikshit,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that accused applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the case of the applicant is identical to the case of co-accused Rahees @ Tol, Sarfaraz @ Butan, Shaanu @ Saanu, Nadeem and Javed, who have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 18.08.2017, 22.09.2017, 07.09.2017 and 22.08.2017 respectively, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶7

The accused applicant is languishing in jail since 21.06.2017. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from judicial custody or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. He has submitted that the applicant is a notorious criminal and he has criminal history of 29 cases.

¶9

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and 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, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶10

Let the applicant, namely, Zahid @ Lambu involved in Case Crime No.91 of 2017 under Sections 395, 397, 412 I.P.C., P.S. Binauli, District Baghpat be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (not less than rupees three lacs) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

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

¶14

(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.

¶15

Order Date :- 12.4.2018 Anupam S/-

Zahid @ Lambu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zahid @ Lambu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohan Lal Vs State of U.P.

Sumeer Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Chandrakant Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Abid Ali Vs State of U.P.

Shah Nawaj Hussain Vs State of U.P.

Shekhar Vs State of U.P.