Allowed

Raju @ Saddam v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2019BAIL/6088/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application, the Single Judge held that the applicant is entitled to release on bail. The court noted allegations of false implication, absence of FIR naming, and lack of independent witnesses. Considering the severity of punishment and prima facie satisfaction, bail was allowed with a bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on personal bond and two sureties in the like amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6088 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Raju @ Saddam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State of U.P and perused the material available on record.

¶6

Contention raised on behalf of the applicant has been confined to the extent that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is not named in the first information report. No offence has been committed by the applicant. There is no independent public witness to the fact of alleged recovery. The allegations levelled against the applicant is wholly false and baseless. Offence alleged is triable by the Magistrate Ist Class. In case, the applicant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 15.10.2018.

¶7

Learned AGA has opposed prayer for bail. However, he has not disputed the aforesaid facts.

¶8

Without entering into merit of the case but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶9

Accordingly, bail application is allowed .

¶10

Let the applicant - Raju @ Saddam involved in Case Crime No. 10 of 2016 related in Case No. 811 of 2016, under Sections - 379, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station - Shyamdeurawa, District - Maharajganj be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶11

Order Date :- 13.2.2019 S Rawat

Raju @ Saddam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju @ Saddam 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra @ Ravi Bind Vs State of U.P.

Brijesh Barar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Deepu Singh Vs State of U.P.

Chandrapal Saini@ Pandit Vs State of U.P.

Chandrapal Saini @ Pandit Vs State of U.P.

Avnish Vs State of U.P.