Allowed

Saiyed Mohd. Faheem @ Mohd. Noor Islam Saiyed v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2022/3762/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application filed by the applicant in a criminal trial for offences under Section 366, 504, 506 IPC. Considering the nature of the offence and the Apex Court dictum in Dataram Singh, the court held that leave of the High Court was required and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was ordered to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to compliance with specified conditions of appearance and not seeking adjournments.

Saiyed Mohd. Faheem @ Mohd. Noor Islam Saiyed Vs State of… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 16

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3762 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Saeid Mohammad @ Saiyad Mohammad @ Mo.Noor Islam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Girjesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.24 of 2020, under Sections 366, 504, 506 and 342 IPC, Police Station Jalalpur, District Ambedkarnagar, during the pendency of trial.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have enticed away the minor daughter of the informant on 05.02.2020 at about 2:30 pm.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. categorically states that her age is 25 years and she has not levelled any kind of allegation of sexual assault against any person whatsoever. The allegations levelled against the applicant are of confining her and keeping her in illegal custody. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the victim was in love with the applicant as she has gone away with her parents, she has been coerced into deposing falsely against the applicant. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 05.10.2020. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing

¶11

any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant- Saeid Mohammad @ Saiyad Mohammad @ Mo.Noor Islam , 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 the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶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

Order Date :- 4.7.2022 Ravi Kant

¶20

Digitally signed by RAVI KANT Date: 2022.07.04 17:55:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Saiyed Mohd. Faheem @ Mohd. Noor Islam Saiyed v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saiyed Mohd. Faheem @ Mohd. Noor Islam Saiyed 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Krishna Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Arun Prakash Tripathi @ Satyam Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Musheer Ahmad and Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home

Shubham Raj Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Department Civil Secretariat, U.P., Lucknow

Mashrur Gaddi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.