Partly allowed

Mehrauddin and 9 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Feb 2021ABAIL/241/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court by a short order denied general anticipatory bail but directed surrender within 90 days for bail consideration. Petitioners No.9 and 10 were granted bail on furnishing bond against future arrest pending cognizance.

What did the court decide?

Applicants to surrender within 90 days for bail consideration; Applicants No.9 and 10 granted bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000 pending cognizance.

Mehrauddin and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 241 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Mehrauddin And 9 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Meharuddin, Dilshad@ Sonu, Mubarak, Arbaj, Sattar, Chhotu, Nasaruddin, Rijwan, smt. Sarjahan and Smt. Ruksana, with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 553 of 2020, under Sections- 224, 225, 307, 323, 332, 341, 353, 336, 395, 397, 427, 504, 34 IPC, and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act Police Station- Tronika City, District- Ghaziabad during pendency of trial.

¶7

The applicants are not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail. The offences alleged are prima facie made out from the allegations in the FIR.

¶8

However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed, on the request of counsel for the applicants, that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 90 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as per the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

¶9

Till then no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

¶10

However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

¶11

Regarding applicants nos.9, and 10, namely Smt. Sarjahan and Smt. Ruksana , it is provided that in the event of arrest of the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail till the cognizance is taken by the court on the police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶13

(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office;

¶14

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶15

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

¶16

(v) 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.

¶17

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶18

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law, expeditiously, independently without being prejudiced by any observations made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶19

The applicants are directed to produce a copy of

¶20

this order downloaded from the official website of this Court before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶21

Order Date :- 4.2.2021 Atul kr. sri.

Mehrauddin and 9 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehrauddin and 9 Others 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P and 2 Others

Maya Devi Vs State of U.P.

Rampyare Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Swami Vs State of U.P.

Amit Pathak Vs State of U.P.