Allowed

Imamuddin v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC31 Jan 2019BAIL/4597/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the bail application of Imamuddin in a cow slaughter case, observing that the applicant is entitled to release on bail. The Court emphasized parity with co-accused who were already granted bail, noting the applicant had no prior criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on personal bond and two sureties each, with conditions against tampering with evidence, pressuring witnesses, and committing similar offences.

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

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4597 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Imamuddin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

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

¶6

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He has no criminal history apart from the present case. The applicant was doing a business of slaughtering. It is further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused persons, namely, Firoz, Amruddin and Bhura have already been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court, vide orders dated 24.8.2018, 18.9.2018 and 10.10.2018, respectively. He claims parity. The applicant is in jail since 4.7.2018.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but concedes the factual aspects of the matter.

¶8

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting upon the merits of the case, in my opinion, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶9

Let applicant-Imamuddin involved in Case Crime No.112 of 2018, under Sections 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act 1955, Police Station Anoopshahar, District Bulandshahar, be released on bail on his/her executing a personal bond and on furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶10

1.The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidences.

¶11

The applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶12

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

¶13

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which he is 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the order granting bail shall automatically be cancelled.

¶16

Order Date :- 31.1.2019 m.a.

Imamuddin v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imamuddin 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

Hari Om Vs State

Deo Nath Vs State of U.P.

Somaru Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Jag Roshan Lal and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikas Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Kashyap Vs State of U.P.