Allowed

Suleman Kalander v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2021BAIL/19546/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail in a criminal matter. The applicant, languishing in jail, argued false implication and lack of public witnesses for recovery. The Court, quoting Dataram Singh, found prima facie satisfaction in favor of bail under Article 21 without finality on merits.

What did the court decide?

Releases the applicant on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties for §4/5 Explosive Substance Act.

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

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19546 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Suleman Kalander Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sharad Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sanjay Singh, learned AGA-I, appearing for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶6

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to malafide intention and ulterior motive of the police personnel. It is next contended that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and the said recovery has been planted against him in order to falsely implicate him in the present case. There is no public witness of the alleged recovery. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused has also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.01.2021. Criminal history of the applicant has properly been explained in para 16 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.

¶8

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment, and larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶9

Let applicant- Suleman Kalander , be released on bail in Case Crime No. 16 of 2021, under Sections- 4/5 Explosive Substance Act, Police StationChandpur, District- Fatehpur, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶10

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

¶11

He will not tamper with the witnesses.

¶12

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

¶13

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the

¶14

court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶15

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 19.7.2021 Arti

Suleman Kalander v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suleman Kalander 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Athar Husain @ Mohd. Athar Vs State of U.P.

Mr Evoh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Singh @ Rajoo Vs State of U.P.

Paras Dhama Vs State of U.P.

Chhatra Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pintu Thakur Vs State of U.P. and Another