Allowed

Shadab v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Oct 2022ABAIL/1732/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the applicant in a case involving the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, considering the nature of the accusation and lack of independent evidence against him.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties on conditions of cooperation and non-interference.

Shadab Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1732 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shadab Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dilip Kumar Patel,Ankit Agarval Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 12 of 2022, under Section 3/5/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Agouta, District Bulandshahr with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. It has further been submitted that applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. According to prosecution version, co-accused Shahid and Faizan were apprehended at the spot and recovery of 8 kg and 7 kg beef respectively was shown from them and that as per prosecution version, two gunny bags having 10 kg beef were also found at the spot. It was submitted that involvement of applicant has been shown on the basis of statement of co-accused persons and except that there is no other evidence against the applicant. There is no independent witness of alleged incident. The applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all

¶8

conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

¶10

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶11

In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶12

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Shadab involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶14

(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police as and when required;

¶15

(ii) the applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

¶16

facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶17

(iii) the applicant would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶19

Order Date :- 12.10.2022 Anand

¶20

Digitally signed by ANAND VERMA Date: 2022.10.14 11:52:35 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shadab v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shadab v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Sufiyaan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Jiya Khan Vs State of U.P.

Chhote Lal and Another vs State of U.P.

Kusum Srivastava and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Tikam Singh Vs State of U.P.