Allowed

Sadiq v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Sept 2020BAIL/25516/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court released applicant Sadiq on bail during trial for shooting incident. Bail granted subject to personal bond, two sureties, attendance, non-tampering with witnesses, and no illegal activities, ignoring opposing counsel's submission regarding criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Sadiq released on bail by executing personal bond and furnishing two sureties subject to conditions of attendance, no tampering with witnesses, and no illegal activities.

Sadiq Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 25516 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sadiq Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Singh Patel,Mohd Shamim Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri D.S. Patel, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶6

By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 35 of 2020, under Section 370 I.P.C., P.S. Chhapar, district-Muzaffar Nagar, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶7

The First Information Report of the incident was lodged by the complainant against the present accused and other co-accused Mehtab, alleging therein that they have caused gun shot injury to his brother on 9.3.2020 at about 9:00 p.m.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that according to the prosecution case the applicant along with other co-accused Mehtab had fired at the injured. Only general role of firing is assigned to both the accused, however the injured in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. (Annexure-3) has clearly stated that the author of the injuries sustained by the injured was co-accused, Mehtab. He has specifically stated that the fire allegedly shot by the present accused was missed. According to Doctor the injured has received one entry wound and exit wound, which might be caused by the bullet injury and might not be caused by bullet injury. He lastly submitted that the applicant, who is in jail since 9.6.2020 and if he released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is criminal history of three cases against the applicant, hence he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶10

In reply learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has properly explained the criminal history in paragraph 12 of the affidavit

¶11

accompanying the bail application.

¶12

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of the punishment, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.

¶13

Let the applicant, Sadiq be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶14

The applicant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.

¶15

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶16

He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.

¶17

It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail.

¶19

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by learned counsel for the applicant along with a self attested identity proof of the said persons (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 2.9.2020 Faridul

Sadiq v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadiq 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 Nagar Vs State of U.P.

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Kumar @ Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Saveeta Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Yunus Vs State of U.P.

Sikandar Vs State of U.P.