Allowed

Shahnawaz v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home

Allahabad HC27 May 2022BAIL/10578/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a multi-section offence case involving IPC and specific economic laws. The court directed that one personal bond and two sureties valid in one case would suffice for all 51 other pending cases against the applicant, relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding broader acceptance of sureties in identical batches of complaints.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail in all pending trial cases based on the sureties and personal bond submitted in Crime No. 245 of 2018, subject to specific court attendance and non-adjournment conditi

Shahnawaz Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

e-file

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10578 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Shahnawaz Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home Counsel for Applicant :- Ayank Mishra,Monika Vaish Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant-Shahnawaz with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 386 of 2018, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC and 39 Da Aadhar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidy Benefits Services) Act, 2016, 66 (C) I.T. Act and 3/7 Essential Commodity (E.C.) Act Police Station-Kotwali, District-Meerut, during pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that incident is alleged to take place in the year 2018 and the first information report has been lodged in 2018. He further submitted that the applicant was engaged for the purposes of Data Operator Service and his contract was valid upto 31.3.2017 only and the applicant was not in the employment after 31.3.2017 as such the applicant cannot be implicated in the present case which is alleged to take place in the year 2018. He further submitted that the applicant has not been involved in misusing in the distribution of essential commodities for which there is no evidence on record. He further submitted that the applicant was implicated in several cases of the same nature in which this Court has granted bail to the applicant. Those orders are annexed as Annexures SA-4 to SA-23. He further submitted that applicant has been implicated in 52 cases regarding which 52 bail applications are listed before this Court for disposal. He next submitted that court concerned be directed to accept one personal bond and two sureties to its satisfaction in all the 52 cases filed against the applicant. He placed reliance upon the order dated 16.3.2021 passed by this Court in Application u/s 482 No.19367 of 2020 (Ravi Kumar Rastogi vs. State of U.P.) in which order of the Apex Court passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8914-8915 of 2018 (Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky vs. State of U.P. ) has been followed wherein the Apex

¶9

Court held that the sureties in one of the cases shall be good enough for sureties in all the said cases. It is next submitted that applicant is languishing in jail since 28.5.2021.

¶10

Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for applicant that the applicant shall not abscond, and will fully cooperate in the criminal law proceedings. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence nor influence the witnesses in any manner.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail stating that the applicant was also involved in the offence even after 31.3.2017, as such he is not entitled to be released on bail. He has further submitted that the applicant should furnish separate bond and sureties in each cases.

¶12

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Shahnawaz involved in aforesaid case be released on bail with the following conditions;

¶14

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶15

(ii) The applicant 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.

¶16

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

¶17

(iv) 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. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶18

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

¶19

Applicant needs not to furnish separate personal bond and sureties in this case. The personal bond and sureties submitted by the applicant in Case Crime No245 of 2018 shall be accepted in all the 51 cases in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in Hani Nishad @ Mohammad Imran @ Vikky (Supra) as well as by this Court in Ravi Kumar Rastogi (Supra) .

¶20

Order Date :- 27.5.2022 AU

¶21

Digitally signed by ADEEB UDDIN Date: 2022.06.01 11:37:36 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shahnawaz v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahnawaz v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home

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

Ankit Kumar Saroj Vs State of U.P.

Bablu Vs State of U.P.

Mobin Ansari Vs State of U.P.

Mehkar Singh Nagar Vs State of U.P.

Shahnawaz Vs State of U.P through Principal Secretary (Home)

Shahnawaz Vs State of U.P through Principal Secretary (Home)