Allowed

Mohamed Naeem Shah v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2019BAIL/35677/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application, the court allowed bail to the applicant under Section 364 IPC, relying on the lack of victim allegation against him and the complicity of co-accused already on bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with personal bond and two sureties once verified, subject to conditions regarding tampering with evidence and appearance in court.

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

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35677 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Mohamed Naeem Shah Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Zafar Abbas Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned A.G.A. for the state and perused the material on record.

¶6

From the perusal of the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that she has not made any allegation against the applicant. Co-accused, Mohd Nizamuddin, has already been granted bail vide order dated 26.08.2019 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 34636 of 2019.

¶7

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India 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 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶8

Let the applicant, Mohamed Naeem Shah involved in Case Crime No. 296 of 2019, under Section 364 I.P.C., Police Station- Cant, District- Allahabad, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶9

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶10

The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶11

The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶12

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected of the

¶13

commission of which they are suspected.

¶14

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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.

¶16

Order Date :- 6.9.2019 Rohit

Mohamed Naeem Shah v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamed Naeem Shah 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saurabh Saxena Vs State of U.P.

Shankar Vs State of U.P.

Harender Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sanu Vs State of U.P.

Matloob Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Mungeri Lal @ Mauhar Singh Vs State of U.P.