Nadeem @ Nadda Vs State of U.P.

In Chamber

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12149 of 2020

Applicant :- Nadeem @ Nadda Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sharique Ahmed Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sharique Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned AGA assisted by Shri Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi (Brief Holder) for the State through video-conference and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Nadeem @ Nadda with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 369 of 2018, under Sections 396, 120-B, 412 & 34 IPC, Police Station - Bidhuna, District - Auraiya during pendency of trial.

¶7

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present: (i) the applicant is accused of offence under Sections 396, 120-B, 412 & 34 IPC;

¶8

(ii) against FIR lodged on 15.08.2018, the applicant is in confinement since 18.08.2019;

¶9

(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation;

¶10

(iv) the applicant has no criminal history;

¶11

(v) chargesheet has been submitted. However, there is no hope of early conclusion of trial;

¶12

(vi) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated purely on rumours. Neither there is any eye witness account nor had the applicant been actually seen nor there is any other material to incriminate the applicant. Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant has been implicated purely on false and/or wrong statements recorded on misapprehensions. A reference has also been made to the fact that the co-accused Jabbar, Gaffar, Danish, Chand Mohd., Raja, Chunnu @ Sahibe Alam, Shahjad @ Majnu, Shan Mohammad @ Chhotey and Bhole @

¶13

Vakil have already been enlarged on bail by this Court, which orders have been annexed as Annexure-15 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. In view of such fact, the applicant is also found entitled to bail;

¶14

(vii) in any case, no reasonable apprehension has been brought to the fore by the State that the applicant, if enlarged on bail, would either tamper with the evidence or delay the trial.

¶15

This Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11973 of 2020 (Vijay Pratap Verma Vs. State of U.P.) has, while enlarging the applicant (in that case) on bail vide order dated 09.04.2020, imposed certain conditions. I am in respectful agreement with the said order and propose to follow the same.

¶16

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the final merits of the case, let the applicant - Nadeem @ Nadda involved in the aforesaid case crime 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 with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when 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.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(iv) The applicant 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

¶21

under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If, in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶22

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

¶23

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶24

(vii) 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.

¶25

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 06.04.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.) shall also be complied. The order reads thus:

¶26

" Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to nonavailability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release. "

¶27

Order Date :- 2.6.2020 AHA

Nadeem @ Nadda v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadeem @ Nadda v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virendra Kumar Sharma Alias Mithuwa Vs State of U.P.

Harendra Vs State of U.P.

Harendra Vs State of U.P.

Harikesh Sharma @ Sintu Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Saif @ Shaif Vs State of U.P.

Chiddalal Vs State of U.P.