Allowed

Sameer v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Aug 2020BAIL/20588/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants bail to the applicant Sameer in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, and 307 IPC. The court imposes several conditions including appearance in court and non-tampering with witnesses. The applicant is to furnish a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and conditions of appearance and non-tampering.

Sameer Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 20588 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sameer Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Raj Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No. 249 of 2020, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC, P.S.-Baghpat District-Baghpat with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the first information report had been lodged on false allegations by Naushad who is distinctly related to the applicant out of previous enmity. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. The injuries of Naushad are simple in nature. The injuries of Rahisuddin were also found simple in nature, except the injury no.1. In CT Scan, soft tissue scalp swelling noted in the right high parietal region. No fracture or intracranial haemorrhage was found. It has further been submitted that the applicant has not committed the alleged offence and has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is no criminal history of the applicant and he is in jail since 2.5.2020.

¶8

It further contended by learned counsel for the applicant that other co-accused namely Jakir has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.8.2020 passed in criminal misc. application no.20547 of 2020.

¶9

Learned A.G.A., however, opposed the prayer for bail.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

Let applicant- Sameer s/o Jakir be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions,

¶12

which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses;

¶14

(ii) 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;

¶15

(iii) 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 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶16

(iv) 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; and

¶17

(v) 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 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.

¶18

Order Date :- 25.8.2020 Harshita

Sameer v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer 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

Ravi Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Imanuddin Vs State of U.P.

Jhakku Singh @ Brijendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Virendra Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Vs State of U.P.

Saurabh Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another