Allowed

Raju @ Ashif Sayeed and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2020ABAIL/4284/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by six applicants in an FIR involving offences under IPC. Bail was granted with conditions including furnishing bond, surrendering passports, and appearing for specific trial stages.

What did the court decide?

Applicants directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each, subject to standard conditions.

Raju @ Ashif Sayeed and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4284 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Raju @ Ashif Sayeed And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Zia Uddin Ahmad,Prabha Shanker Mishra,Sumit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Order on Criminal Misc. Exemption Application

¶7

This exemption application is allowed.

¶8

Order on Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application

¶9

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Raju @ Ashif Sayeed, Saquib, Shameem Ahmad, Danish, Faheem and Aafan , with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 0164 of 2020, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 452, 354, 392 IPC, Police Station- Sarai Mamrej, District- Prayagraj, during pendency of trial.

¶10

There are general allegations against all the accused persons in the FIR regarding the alleged offence. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. No specific role has been assigned to any of them. The applicants have no criminal history to their credit.

¶11

Counsel for the informant has submitted that one of the injured, Pankaj, had suffered fracture on his jaw. Counsel for the applicant has rejoined and submitted that no specific role has been assigned to any of the accused who was instrumental in causing such injury. The applicants have definite apprehension that they may be arrested by the police any time.

¶12

Learned AGA has also opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants.

¶13

Hence the applicants are directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and his antecedents as

¶14

per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and order dated 22.05.2020 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2609 of 2020 . The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶15

Let the applicants involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

The applicants shall not leave India during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶17

The applicants shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.

¶18

That the applicants 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;

¶19

The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicants.

¶20

In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail, the trial Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 .

¶21

The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶22

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶23

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶24

Order Date :- 1.12.2020 Rohit

Raju @ Ashif Sayeed and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju @ Ashif Sayeed and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Naveen Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Nishchal Rathor Vs State of U.P.

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mashwoofur Rahman Vs State of U.P.

Mahendra and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Suresh Babu Vs State of U.P. and Another