Allowed

Ikram v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Allahabad HC14 Oct 2022/7222/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7222 of 2022, the court allowed bail to the applicant in a cow slaughter case. Adjudging that identically situated co-accused had been granted bail and considering the applicant's criminal history explanation, the court found it a fit case for bail without expressing views on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail by furnishing personal bonds, two sureties, and a deposit of Rs. 20,000 in GoSewa Ayog.

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

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7222 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ikram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- O.P. Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, 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. 163 of 2022, under Sections 3/5/8 of The Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, P.S.- Purwa, District - Unnao.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the allegation in the F.I.R., 270 Kgs of meat, 8 legs and 2 heads of cow were recovered from Innova car, which was driven by the co-accused Rashid. He further added that the applicant is innocent and has not committed the aforesaid offence and he was planted by the police in the instant matter and the recovery of the beef has been shown from his possession. He next added that charge sheet has been filed in the instant matter and that there is no possibility that he will flee away from the investigation proceedings. He next added that the co-accused Arman has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5937 of 2022, vide order dated 09.06.2022. He next added that the applicant is having criminal history of two cases which has been explained in paragraph no.8 of the bail application. He next added that the applicant is ready to deposit Rs.20,000/- in the account of GoSewa Ayog. He next added that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 02.05.2022. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the investigation.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the contention aforesaid and submitted that the applicant has committed the aforesaid offence as the beef was recovered from the joint possession of the applicant including the other co-accused and as such he is not entitled for any relief but he could not dispute the fact that similarly situated co-

¶9

accused has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶10

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that identically situated coaccused has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and further two cases of criminal history has been explained aforesaid and the applicant is languishing in jail since 02.05.2022, thus without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶11

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 case of bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Ikram involved in the aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:-

¶13

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

¶14

(2) 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. He 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 of the Indian Penal Code;

¶15

(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

¶16

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(5) The applicant shall also deposit Rs.20,000/- in the bank

¶18

account of GoSewa Ayog and shall file receipt at the time of filing the bail bonds and sureties before the C.J.M. concerned.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 14.10.2022 S. Shivhare

¶22

Digitally signed by SHASHANK SHIVHARE Date: 2022.10.17 22:46:15 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ikram v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ikram v. State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow

Basudev Goswami Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Lko.

Raj Kumar Kushwaha @ Aryan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Nadeem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Jabir Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Arun Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.