Allowed

Arshad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Nov 2022BAIL/36924/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail in a cow slaughter case. Court relied on co-accused's bail, lack of independent recovery evidence, and absence of prior criminal record. Bail granted subject to conditions regarding court attendance and prohibitions on adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Arshad Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 58

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 36924 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Arshad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abdul Mazeed Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in the Court today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Mr. Abdul Mazeed, learned counsel for the applicant and Vinod Kumar Singh Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicantArshad with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Crime No. 567 of 2022, under Sections 3/k1/8 Cow Slaughter Act, Police StationPuranpur, District-Pilibhit, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present first information report lodged by the police is nothing but a bundle of lie and the same has been lodged only for exploiting the applicant by indulging his name in a fake, false and frivolous case. The entire prosecution story as unfolded in the first information report is absolutely a self-made story projected by the informant. It is further submitted that the applicant is innocent. Further argument is that the alleged recovery of beef shown against the applicant is planted one by the Police. There is no independent witness of the said recovery. There is also no report of any Forensic Science Laboratory on the basis of which it can be said that the alleged recovery of meet is of beef.

¶9

Apart from the above, it is submitted that the co-accused, namely, Sabid and Sarkar who have also been named in the first information report have already been enlarged on bail by Coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated 27th September, 2022 and 13th October, 2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 36694 of 2022 and 38833 of 2022 respectively. The case of the present applicant is similar and identical to that of the aforesaid co-accused. As such the present applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶10

The applicant has no previous criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 22nd July, 2022.

¶11

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but he could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Considering the nature of the offence, provision for initiation of cases and release the accused, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

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

¶14

(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.

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶18

(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 3.11.2022 Sushil/-

¶20

Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.11.09 10:11:09 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Arshad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arshad 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

Mohshin Vs State of U.P.

Pawan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Afjal Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Suraj Lodhi Vs State of U.P.

Dharmdas Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others