Allowed

Wahid @ Podina v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2019BAIL/13544/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant, Wahid @ Podina, in a case under Sections 307, 504, and 120-B IPC. The release was contingent upon furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding non-tampering, court appearances, and police station visits. The Court emphasized that the decision did not reflect on the ultimate merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with a personal bond and two local sureties, subject to specific conditions.

Wahid @ Podina Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13544 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Wahid @ Podina Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Kumar, Nigmendra Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brajesh Kumar, Prabhat Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Nigmendra Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prabhat Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant, Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant – Wahid @ Podina with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.1552 of 2018, under Sections 307, 504, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahr.

¶8

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is next argued that as per allegation in the FIR the role of causing injury by fire arm is assigned to Farman. In the statement of the injured also the role of calling the injured for settling the dispute has been assigned to the applicant whereas the role of causing injury has been assigned to Farman. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 3 of the supplementary affidavit. It is next contended that there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.03.2019. Accordingly, he requests for bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by 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 , without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his

¶11

furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

i) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶13

ii) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

¶14

iii) The applicant shall personally appear once in the first week of every month in the concerned police station. In case of any default, the in-charge, police station shall forthwith inform the concerned court about this breach.

¶15

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

¶16

Office is required to communicate this order to the S.S.P. concerned, who is required to convey this order to the concerned police station to ensure compliance of condition no.iii as provided hereinbefore.

¶17

The concerned court below which will accept the bail bonds is also directed to convey a photo-copy of this order to the concerned police station so that the condition no.iii provided hereinbefore may be complied with.

¶18

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶19

Order Date :- 22.7.2019 Anand Sri./-

Wahid @ Podina v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wahid @ Podina 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashid Qurasi Vs State of U.P.

Nikku @ Pappu Vs State of U.P.

Mahendra Pal Vs State of U.P.

rajendra prasad @ hansi croniya Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Ramesh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.