Salman Vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 70

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22503 of 2022

Applicant :- Salman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar,Rajesh Yadav,Satish Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandrajeet Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 132 of 033, under Sections 307, 323, 34, IPC, Police Station- Vijai Nagar, District - Ghaziabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case due to personal grudge of the informant. He further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history. It is also submitted that there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, he may flee from the course of law or may, otherwise, misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant is in jail since 28.2.2022 and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is very bleak.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail, but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in mind that co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

¶10

Let applicant namely Salman be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime Number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶11

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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

¶12

abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(iii) In case, the applicant misuse 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 fail 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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶17

Order Date :- 14.9.2022 samz

¶18

(Piyush Agrawal, J.)

¶19

Digitally signed by SYED AKHTARMOHAMMAD MEQDAD Date: 2022.09.14 15:47:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Salman v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salman v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ang Pratap Bhan Singh @ Satendra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Tanjeem Vs State of U.P.

Haidar Vs State of U.P.

Bilal Vs State of U.P.

Neeraj Vs State of U.P.

Khalid @ Pawwa Vs State of U.P.