Allowed

Saleem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2022/3676/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted bail to applicant Saleem in a criminal trial under various IPC sections. The court released him on a personal bond and two sureties, imposing conditions regarding witness tampering, court attendance, and potential arrest procedures for bail misuse.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding witness tampering, court attendance, and potential proclamation and arrest for bail misuse.

Saleem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3676 of 2022

¶2

Applicant :- Saleem

¶3

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Shanker Lal Pandey,Farooqahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dev Mani Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 40 of 2022, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 386, 342 of the I.P.C., P.S.-Raniganj, District - Pratapgarh.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to ulterior motive. He has further added that as per the version of the F.I.R., the injured was assaulted by the present applicant including other co-accused persons. He added that, as per the X-ray report there was no fracture found but after CT scan, the fracture has been seen. He submits that the weapon which is said to have been used is not such by which serious injury could be caused. He also added that there is no criminal intent to assault the injured and the F.I.R. has been lodged due to enmity. He also added only general allegation have been made against all the co-accused persons and the applicant. He also added that there is no previous criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 18.02.2022. He has also shown certain falsity in the allegations made in the F.I.R. In case, the applicant is granted bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has very vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that the fracture was found in the CT scan, and as such, the applicant has committed the aforesaid offence.

¶9

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the weapons used, itself indicate that there was no criminal intent to cause serious injury to the injured person; No previous criminal antecedent of the applicant; No specific role has been assigned coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.02.2022.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶11

Let the applicant Saleem involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶12

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶13

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. She shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶14

(3) 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.; and

¶15

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

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

¶17

It is clarified that the observations 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 merits of the case.

¶18

Order Date :- 27.9.2022 Anurag, APS

¶19

Digitally signed by ANURAG SINGH Date: 2022.09.28 19:39:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Saleem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saleem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Anil Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Akram Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow

Sandeep Pasi @ Chirraiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Qadeer Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Ramesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary Home Lko.

Sachin Nayar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.