Allowed

Akeel Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 May 2018BAIL/8213/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under BNS/IPC charges involving explosive substances and death, the court granted bail as a co-accused in the same FIR was already released, ordering the applicant released on personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties in compliance with the court's satisfaction, subject to standard bail conditions.

Akeel Ahmad Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8213 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Akeel Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi,Prakash Chandra Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

According to the prosecution case the F.I.R. was lodged against four accused persons, namely, Shameem Ahmad, Uvasih, Bajhul Kamar and Aaqeel Ahmad alleging that on 20.08.2017 some explosive substance was blast at the time of marriage and some persons have received injury and Qasim was died.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that co-accused Shameem Ahmad has already been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.4.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13914 of 2018; there is no eye witness account or independent witness against the applicant; having no criminal history; there is no evidence against the applicant; the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case; the role of the applicant is identical to that of the co-accused who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail; in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial; he is languishing in jail since 9.10.2017 (about eight months) having no criminal history.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and admitted that he has received no criminal history against this accused, the role of this accused is identical to the role of the accused who have already been enlarged on bail.

¶11

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and the fact that identically placed co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is deemed fit to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶12

Let the applicant Akeel Ahmad involved in the Case Crime No. 629 of 2017, under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C. and Section 5 of Explosive Substance Act, P.S. Baheri, District Bareilly be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶14

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶15

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶16

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.

¶17

v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 30.5.2018 OP

Akeel Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akeel Ahmad 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

Sukhveer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunder Vs State of U.P.

Satayendra @ Kalu Vs State of U.P.

Satya Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Javed Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Reeta @ Chhoti Vs State of U.P.