Allowed

Sohail v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2020BAIL/26267/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal migrant bail application was filed against the applicant accused under the Cow Slaughter Act. The court was satisfied that the applicant was entitled to bail and ordered his release on personal bond and sureties, imposing standard conditions to prevent tampering and ensure attendance.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to strict conditions regarding attendance and prevention of tampering with evidence.

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

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26267 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sohail Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.109 of 2020 under Sections 3/5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station- Puranpur, District- Pilibhit.

¶6

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant herein has wrongly been implicated in the crime under Cow Slaughter Act on the basis of the statement of the co-accused recorded during the course of investigation. The meat was recovered from an open place. There is no recovery from the applicant nor he has any criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 06.07.2020.

¶7

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

¶8

Considering the above 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.

¶9

Let applicant- Sohail, 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, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶10

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

¶11

(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;

¶12

(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

¶13

proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶14

(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

¶15

(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.

¶16

Order Date :- 9.9.2020 Himanshu

Sohail v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohail 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Das and Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Faizan Ali Vs State of U.P.

Anjan Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shabban Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Akil Vs State of U.P.

Sajid Vs State of U.P.