Allowed

Abrar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2019BAIL/17392/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Court No. - 80 dismissed no appearance and allowed bail application for Abrar charged under Sections 392, 411, 420 IPC. Court found it a fit case for bail citing co-accused Sajid Khan enlargement and listed standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties each subject to standard conditions regarding evidence tampering and witness harassment.

Abrar Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 80

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17392 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Abrar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

As there is strike of lawyers, no one has appeared on behalf of the applicant to argue the bail application. However, Mohammad Yameen, who is also pairokar of the affidavit accompanying the bail application has appeared in person.

¶6

This is a bail application on behalf of the applicant Abrar in connection with Case Crime No.39 of 2019, under Section 392, 411, 420 I.P.C., P.S. Gabhana, District Aligarh.

¶7

Heard Sri Mohammad Yameen, on behalf of the applicant in person and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

It has been argued that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with the ulterior motive. He submitted that the applicant along with other co-accused, Sajid Khan was already arrested at the spot and Sajid Khan has already been enlarged on bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.06.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.25131 of 2019. He further submitted that there is allegedly joint recovery, which is totally fake and false and is not tenable in the eye of law. He claims parity. He further submitted that all the offences are triable by the court of Magistrate. He submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 04.03.2019 and in case, he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail plea. He does not dispute the factum of parity.

¶10

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of the punishment, the evidence appearing against the accused, considering that the aforesaid co-accused has already been enlarged on bail, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail.

¶11

Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶12

Let the applicants Abrar involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on 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;

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 9.9.2019 R./

Abrar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abrar 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

Jitendra Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.

Balram Singh Vs State of U.P.

Anand Raj @ Nandan Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Shailendra Pratap Singh Alias Sanjay Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ram Ashish Singh Vs State of U.P.