Allowed

Sakib v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Nov 2022ABAIL/10945/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a cow slaughter case. The court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, directing release on a personal bond with two sureties subject to standard conditions including appearance, non-interference with evidence, and no foreign travel without permission, relying on Sushila Aggarwal.

What did the court decide?

Accused Sakib ordered to be released forthwith on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties subject to standard bail conditions including appearance and non-tampering.

Sakib Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10945 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sakib Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. Ladli Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 321 of 2022, under Sections 3, 5, 8 of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station-Parikshitgarh, DistrictMeerut, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, five persons were arrested by the police on 16.8.2022 alongwith 30 kg of beef.

¶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. Learned counsel has stated that name of the applicant has come up in the statement of the arrested five persons namely, Mikki @ Moin Khan, Anwaar, Haseen, Kalwa and Mateen. There is no criminal history of the applicant. It is further stated that applicant is co-operating in the investigation and is ready to cooperate in future also. There is no likelihood of the applicant repeating the said offence, if any. 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.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that applicant has no criminal history.

¶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 applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶11

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed . In the event of arrest, let the accused-

¶12

applicant Sakib be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on bail on furnishing a personal bond with 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:-

¶13

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

¶14

that the applicant 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;

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 23.11.2022 Shalini

¶22

Digitally signed by SHALINI JAISWAL Date: 2022.11.25 09:55:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sakib v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sakib 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imran Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devmati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Usman Vs State of U.P.

Nand Lal Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Rashmi Rawat (Advocate) Vs State of U.P.

Mohit @ Anuj and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another