Allowed

Nizam Alam v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC31 Aug 2022ABAIL/5269/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted anticipatory bail to the applicant facing charges under IPC 307 and the Cow Slaughter Act. The court observed that while name is pending in F.I.R., the role was shown only by co-accused statements without corroboration, and no coercive process was issued previously. Bail was allowed subject to a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed for personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each on furnishing conditions of cooperation and non-interference.

Nizam Alam Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5269 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Nizam Alam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Yashwant Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit, filed by the learned counsel for the applicant, is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 0008 of 2018, under Section 307 IPC and Section 3/5A/8 of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty against Animals Act, 1966, P.S. Patherwa, District Kushinagar, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶8

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 criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far. According to the prosecution version, a pickup vehicle no. BR 28 L8194 was being stopped by the police after receipt of information but the driver of the said truck has tried to ran over the police, however, the police officials escaped and that total six cow species animals were recovered from the said vehicle. Learned counsel submitted that first information report was lodged against co-accused Tufani Harijan and Yasin. The applicant is

¶9

not named in the first information report. It was submitted that the involvement of applicant has been shown merely on the basis of statement of co-accused Tufani Harijan. There is no independent witness of alleged recovery. In the alleged incident neither any slaughtering has been shown nor any beef has been recovered and mere allegation is that the cow species animals were being carried for slaughtering. In the alleged incident no police official has sustained any injury. 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 during investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

In the instant case, considering the settled principles 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.

¶13

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Nizam Alam in the aforesaid case crime, he 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 below concerned with the following conditions :-

¶15

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

¶16

(ii) 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/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 :- 31.8.2022 A. Tripathi

¶20

Digitally signed by AKHILESH TRIPATHI Date: 2022.09.01 13:26:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nizam Alam v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nizam Alam 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

Javed Khan Vs State of U.P.

Uma Shanker Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Madhu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dileep Diwakar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lucky Trisholiya and 5 Others Vs State of U.P.