Allowed

Salman and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2022ABAIL/10837/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by applicants charged with offences under Sections 452, 323, 504, and 506 IPC. After hearing counsels and perusing the record, the court relied on Supreme Court precedent to grant bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of accused applicants on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each with conditions.

Salman and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10837 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Salman And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sameer Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in S.S.T. No. 807 of 2022, Case Crime No. 357 of 2022, under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Amroha Nagar, District Amroha, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the co-accused person Swaleheen is said to have committed rape with the niece of the first informant in the night of 23.7.2022. The applicants are said to have beaten the niece of the first informant on 24.7.2022 at about 8.00 am after the matter was reported by the victim to them.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the applicants are absolutely innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize them. Learned counsel has stated that the main accused is Swaleheen and there are no allegations of sexual assault against the applicants. Learned counsel has indicated several contradictions in the FIR itself, which is said to have been transcribed in indirect speech, but the allegations therein are in direct speech. Learned counsel has next stated that applicant no. 1 has criminal history of one case which has been explained in para 4 of the supplementary affidavit. The case of the applicants is on a different footing to the main accused person Swaleheen. No offence, whatsoever, has been committed by the applicants. It is further stated that applicants are co-operating in the investigation and are ready to cooperate in future also. There is no likelihood of the applicants repeating the said offence, if any. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but has not disputed the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the applicants.

¶10

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- (2020) 5 SCC 1 ", the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶11

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed . In the event of arrest, let the accusedapplicants- Salman and Danish be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned/Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶13

that the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶14

that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶15

that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶16

that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶17

that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶19

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶20

Order Date :- 6.12.2022 Shalini

¶21

Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.12.06 16:57:19 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Salman and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salman and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Sandeep Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Guljar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sachin Verma @ Sachin Singh Vs State of U.P.

Aamir Vs State of U.P. and Another

Narayan Das Prajapati Vs State of U.P.and Another

Jahangir Vs State of U.P. and Another