Allowed

Arsad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2019BAIL/35463/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held an application for bail in a cheating case under the Anaitik Vyapar (Nivaran) Adhiniyam. The court allowed the bail application, citing the severity of the offence as not requiring detention and the lack of independent witnesses supporting the prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail subject to a personal bond, two reliable sureties, and filing of an undertaking, subject to conditions regarding conduct during the trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35463 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Arsad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kamal Dev Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

Accused-applicant, involved in Case Crime No.449 of 2019, under Sections 3, 4 and 5 Anaitik Vyapar (Nivaran) Adhiniyam, Police Station Kotwali, District Etawah, applied for bail.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present by the Police because some hot-talk was took between the applicant and Police of concerned Police Station. In the FIR, Police shown that applicant was arrested on 14.07.2019 at 07:00 O' Clock but FIR was lodged on 15.07.2019 at 06:30 O' Clock without explanation of delay. It is further submitted that Police has arrested some other person on the place of incident but FIR has been lodged against the applicant and arrested from his house. There is no independent witness who support the prosecution story. Aforesaid Sections are not covered in the definition of Anaitik Vyapar (Nivaran) Adhiniyam. Applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 15.07.2019. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant's fleeing away from the judicial process 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. has opposed the prayer for bail but did not dispute the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that applicant was arrested from the spot.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rival contention of learned counsel for the parties, detention of applicant in jail, severity of punishment in case of conviction, alleged recovery from the possession of the accused-applicant and without commenting upon the merit of the case, applicant deserves bail.

¶10

Accordingly, bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let applicant Arsad be released on bail in the aforesaid case

¶12

crime on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties and filing an undertaking to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

¶14

The applicant shall co-operate with the trial and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for charge, evidence when the witnesses are present in the court, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and argument.

¶15

During trial, he shall not indulge in any criminal activities or case.

¶16

In breach of any condition enumerated above, Trial Court shall be at liberty to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶17

Order Date :- 26.9.2019 I.A.Siddiqui

Arsad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arsad 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

Vikas Vs State of U.P.

Bharat Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Ratan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Rukhsana Vs State of U.P.

Rinku Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Aneesh Ahmad @ Kannu @ Sonu Vs State of U.P.