Allowed

Saud v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2021BAIL/14219/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal allowed the second bail application of Saud, who was in custody since May 2020 accused under Section 307 IPC. Relief was granted subject to specific conditions regarding trial attendance, witness tampering, and injury prevention, directing release on surety.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions ensuring attendance at key trial stages and prohibiting witness interference.

Saud Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14219 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Saud Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- V.P. Singh Kashyap, Amar Jeet Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

¶6

This is a second bail application. It is brought on record that the unnamed first information report had been lodged in the incident-in-question. The co-accused Chaman was later implicated as he had enimity with the complainant. The name of the applicant had come up in the statement of the co-accused Chaman who has been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail No.6219 of 2021 on 10.02.2021. It may further be noted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.05.2020.

¶7

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant, the nature of allegations and the period of custody, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is fit case for grant of bail.

¶8

The second bail application is, accordingly, allowed.

¶9

Let the applicant- Saud s/o Manjoor Ahmad involved in Case Crime No.267 of 2019, under Section 307 IPC, P.S.- Pakbada, District- Moradabad be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶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.

¶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.

¶16

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.

¶17

Noticing the said fact, this Court finds that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. It is further noted that the learned counsel for the applicant has assured that the applicant is ready to co-operate in the trial and shall appear before the Court as and when he is required.

¶18

Order Date :- 17.9.2021 Himanshu

Saud v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saud 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

Ramraj Kol Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Vs State of U.P.

Gyanendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jitendra Yadav Vs Banwari Singh Yadav

Imanuddin Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Maya Gautam Vs State of U.P. and Another