Rashid v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
Court granted bail to the applicant, Rashid, who surrendered after a non-bailable warrant was issued for his absence from trial in a Case Crime concerning Section 307 IPC.
What did the court decide?
Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount with specific conditions.
What the court decided
Court No. - 60
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 659 of 2019
Applicant :- Rashid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Joshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that he could not appear before the trial court due to nature call. So the non bailable warrant against him was issued by the court on 05.03.2018 and the applicant has surrendered before the Court on 28.04.2018. He further submits that in future he shall obey the order of court and will present on each date fixed by the court below and he is in jail since 28.04.2018. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail application.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.
Let the applicant Rashid involved in Case Crime No. 78 of 2009, under Section 307 I.P.C., Police Station G.R.P. Chandausi, District Sambhal be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions;
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant involved in an offence under Section 307 IPC is entitled to bail after surrendering following the issuance of a non-bailable warrant?
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Rashid
Coram
Suresh Kumar Gupta
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · April
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/659/2019
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court