Allowed¶13

Mohd. Shami Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Mar 2022BAIL/38762/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Vikas Budhwar, J.), order dated 11.3.2022, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 38762 of 2021 — Mohd. Shami Ahmad v. State of U.P. — bail granted under S. 439 Cr.P.C. in Cow Slaughter Act (Ss. 3/5A/8) case, Case Crime No. 206 of 2021, P.S. Pipri, Kaushambi; criminal history explained (Gambling Act and Arms Act cases post-FIR); custody since 22.8.2021; COVID-19 jail overcrowding considered; personal bond with two sureties and standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Mohd. Shami Ahmad to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 206 of 2021 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the conditions in paragraphs 15-19 of the judgment; breach of conditions to be a ground for cancellation. ¶13

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Mohd. Shami Ahmad, arraigned in Case Crime No. 206 of 2021 under Sections 3/5A/8 of the Cow Slaughter Act, P.S. Pipri, District Kaushambi, is entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶6

Court's answer

This Court prima facie finds the case fit for grant of bail: the criminal history has been properly explained, the applicant is in jail since 22.8.2021, and the Court has considered the nature of acquisition, the evidence collected by the I.O. in support of the charge, gravity of offence, nature and severity of punishment, complicity of the accused and all attending circumstances.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The bail application is allowed, without making any observations on the merits of the case.

¶13

Key takeaways

The applicant is to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions: no tampering with prosecution evidence or intimidation/pressurization of witnesses; sincere cooperation in the trial without seeking adjournments; no indulgence in criminal activity after release; no inducement, threat or promise to dissuade any person from disclosing facts to the Court or police; and verification of identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties before the bonds are accepted.ratio¶14
Breach of any of the bail conditions shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — S. 439 Cr.P.C. — applicant Mohd. Shami Ahmad sought bail in Case Crime No. 206 of 2021 under Sections 3/5A/8 of the Cow Slaughter Act, P.S. Pipri, District Kaushambi; bail application earlier rejected by the court below on 2.9.2021. Held: fit case for bail — criminal history (Case Crime No. 101 of 2020, Gambling Act; Case Crime No. 207 of 2021, Ss. 4/25 Arms Act) properly explained and contended to be post-FIR; applicant in jail since 22.8.2021; Court considered nature of acquisition, evidence collected by the I.O., gravity of offence, severity of punishment, complicity of accused and attending circumstances; jail overcrowding during the COVID-19 pandemic also factored in (Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 1/2020, Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in prisons, Supreme Court of India). Bail allowed on personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, with conditions; breach a ground for cancellation; no observations on merits; observations not to affect the trial judge's independent opinion.

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38762 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Shami Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arjun Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Arjun Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, and Sri Avanish Kumar Shukla, learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant- Mohd. Shami Ahmad for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.206 of 2021, under Sections 3/5A/8 of Cow Slaughter Act, registered at Police Station- Pipri, District- Kaushambi.

¶7

The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 2.9.2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case in question, as the applicant has not committed any offence. He was even in fact sitting beside the tubewell. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that he is innocent and the recovery of 1.5 quintals of meat and the certain articles, which are used for slaughtering was not found in his possession. Learned counsel for the applicant has referred to paragraph-2 of the supplementary affidavit so as to contend that so far as Case Crime no. 101 of 2020, which purports to be of Gambling Act, and Case Crime no. 207 of 2021, under Sections 4/25 of Arms Act is concerned, same is post lodging of the present FIR. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that applicant is languishing in jail since 22.8.2021. If the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail, he be enlarged on bail.

¶9

Countering the said submission, the learned AGA though opposed the bail while arguing the applicant has committed offence, therefore, he has been proceeded in the said case, however, he could not dispute that the criminal history has been properly explained.

¶10

Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned

¶11

counsel for the parties on the question of bail, this Court prima facie finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail, as the criminal history has been properly explained and is languishing in jail since 22.8.2021, as 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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

Let the applicant- Mohd. Shami Ahmad 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 :-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(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 evidence.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 11.3.2022 N.S.Rathour

¶24

Digitally signed by NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR Date: 2022.03.11 17:44:31 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Shami Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Shami Ahmad 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shakil @ Khunti Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Singh @ David Vs State of U.P.

Umardaraj@ Kala Vs State of U.P.

Pushpa Vs State of U.P.

Ravikant Vs State of U.P.

Iliyas Ansari Vs State of U.P.