Allowed

Wahid v. State of U.P through Its Secretary Home Up at Lucknow

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2022BAIL/1941/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Wahid in a cow slaughter case. The court found this a fit case for bail given the applicant's lack of criminal history, the evidence issues, and jail overcrowding during the pandemic.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to personal bond and two sureties with conditions not to tamper with evidence.

Wahid Vs State of U.P through Its Secretary Home Up at… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 92

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1941 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Wahid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Through Its Secretary Home Up At Lucknow Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Tripathi,Vinod Kumar Tirpathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Today, the matter has been taken up through virtual mode.

¶6

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Munne Lal, the learned AGA for the State.

¶7

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant- Wahid for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.366 of 2021, under Sections 3/5/8 of the Cow Slaughter Act, registered at Police Station-Kiratpur, District- Bijnor.

¶8

The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 15.12.2021.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that a first information report has been lodged by S.I. Gaurav Kumar against the applicant and three others before P.S. Kiratpur, District Bijnor being FIR No. 0366 on 10.11.2021 at 00:35 hours under Sections 3/5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act, showing the commission of the offence on 9.11.2021.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case in question, as first of all, he has not committed the said offence as he was not caught slaughtering the cow, but the contention in the FIR with relation to the fact that applicant was in possession of cow meat in a bag.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that there was no independent witness of the recovery in question and also there was no laboratory report to show that the said meat is beef, which is alleged to have been found. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the applicant does not possess any criminal history, but on being specifically asked, as to in which paragraph, he has stated so, he could not point out the same. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that he is unnecessary languishing in jail since 10.11.2021, if he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty, he be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Countering the said submission, the learned AGA has opposed the bail while arguing that the applicant has committed the said offence and he was found to be in possession of the cow meat. However, on a specific query being made to the learned A.G.A, with regard to the fact as to whether the applicant has any criminal history, he, as per the instructions so received by him, has made a statement that the applicant possesses no criminal history.

¶13

Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on the question of bail, this Court prima facie finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail looking into the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 10.11.2021, and also looking into the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O, in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of the punishment in the case of conviction, complicity of accused and all attending circumstances.

¶14

Courts have taken notice of the overcrowding of jails during the current pandemic situation ( Ref.: Suo Motu Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons before the Supreme Court of India ). These circumstances shall also be factored in while considering bail applications on behalf of accused persons.

¶15

In the light of the aforenoted discussion and without making any observations on the merits of the case, the bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicant- Wahid involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶17

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶20

(iv) 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 to any police officer or tamper with the

¶21

evidence.

¶22

(v) Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶24

Any observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned Trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶25

Taking into consideration that Covid-19 is continuing and due to which certified copy would not be possible to be obtained by the applicant, therefore, if a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court and self attested by the counsel for the applicant is placed before the Court, the same would be entertained.

¶26

Order Date :- 3.2.2022 N.S.Rathour

¶27

Digitally signed by NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2022.02.08 11:29:56 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Wahid v. State of U.P through Its Secretary Home Up at Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wahid v. State of U.P through Its Secretary Home Up at Lucknow

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

Rajendra Patel Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Vs State of U.P.

Junaid Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar@ Raju Vs State of U.P.

Misrar Vs State of U.P through Its Secretary Home Up at Lucknow