Allowed

Saleem v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Jun 2021BAIL/15089/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed an application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 and 307 IPC. The applicant was granted bail subject to a personal bond, two sureties, and specific undertaking conditions regarding trial proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail personal bond and two sureties each verifying. Court examined conditions for bail with strict undertakings regarding adjournments and presence in court.

Saleem Vs State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15089 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Saleem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shamsuddin Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Farid Ahmed

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State through video conferencing and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.177 of 2019, under Sections 323, 324, 325, 504, 506, 307 IPC at Police Station Janakpuri, District Saharanpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case on false facts. During investigation, the investigating officer of the case has added Sections 325 and 307 IPC in the aforesaid case. After submission of final report, a protest petition was filed in which the applicant was summoned, thereafter, the applicant was arrested on 12.02.2021. He further submits that similarly placed co-accused Sharafat has already granted bail by another coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.10.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.42849 of 2019 (Sharafat vs. State of U.P.), copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure No.4 to the bail application. He further submits that since the co-accused has already been granted bail, the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicant is in jail since 13.02.2021.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail.

¶9

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶10

Let the applicant- Saleem , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of

¶11

the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.

¶13

(ii) 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 IPC.

¶14

(iii) 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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF 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 IPC.

¶15

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶18

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶19

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

¶20

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 23.6.2021

¶23

Ajeet

Saleem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saleem 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

Prashannjeet Vs State of U.P.

Bhagvendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Salil Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akhtar Raza Vs State of U.P. and Another

Karan Vs State of U.P.

Guddu @ Fakir Vs State of U.P.