Allowed

Sufiyan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2022BAIL/35562/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. The applicant was in jail since July 2022. He claimed false implication and lack of independent witnesses during evidence recovery. The court found a case for bail and released him on personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions.

Sufiyan Vs State of U.P. — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35562 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sufiyan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shamim Uddin Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 414 of 2022, under Section 3/5A/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, P.S. Nawabganj, District Prayagraj, during pendency of the trial.

¶7

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity; as per F.I.R., four cows and three knives are alleged to have been recovered from the possession of applicant; there is no independent or public witness of the alleged recovery which is planted. It is submitted that no offence under U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 has been committed by him warranting punishment under the aforesaid Act. It has further been submitted that police after arrest, implicated the applicant under Section 4/25 Arms Act. Moreover, there is no prospect of trial of the present case being concluded in near future. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.07.2022 and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and co-operate in trial.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant.

¶9

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of accused and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another , passed in S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case

¶10

for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant, Sufiyan, who is involved in the aforesaid case 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 subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 21.9.2022

¶17

Meenu

¶18

Digitally signed by MEENU SINGH Date: 2022.09.22 11:52:05 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sufiyan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sufiyan v. State of U.P.

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

Suraj Vs State of U.P.

Iliyas Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ranjeet @ Rocky Vs State of U.P.

Iftikar Khan Vs State of U.P.

Munnesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Radha @ Radhika Vs State of U.P.