Allowed

Salim v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Mar 2022BAIL/44500/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant, Salim, sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a 148 IPC case involving injury with weapons. The Court found him fit for bail due to no criminal history, lack of specific role, and jail overcrowding concerns. Bail was granted on personal and surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on personal bond and two sureties on specific conditions including not tampering with evidence.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44500 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Salim Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sadaful Islam Jafri,Mohd Zubair,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Lokesh Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Nazira Adil, Advocate having AOR No. A/N0101/21 holding brief of Sri Mohd Zubair, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Lokesh Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri A.K. Shukla, learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved for seeking bail in Case Crime No. 364 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 506, 307 I.P.C. registered at Police Station- Kairana, District- Shamli.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant has been rejected by the court below, on 20.09.2021.

¶8

The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the FIR has been lodged by Smt. Kasima in the above noted section before the aforesaid police station on 09.07.2021 with an allegation that on the unfateful day i.e. 08.07.2021 at about 09:00 pm the complainant's husband Shameem along with his Irfan son were coming to their house after selling fruits then the co-accused persons have attacked upon them and one of the coaccused being Nadeem had attacked upon them by axe pursuant whereof the have sustained grievous injuries and the applicant herein along with three others who are nominated in the FIR and and three unnamed accused resorted to use of axe cuddle etc. for extending injuries. He further argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the said case as no specific role has been assigned to him. He has drawn the attention of the court towards paragraph no. 23 so as to contend that the applicant does not possess any criminal history and he is anguishing in jail since 10.07.2021.

¶9

Countering the said submission learned AGA for the State has opposed the bail, while arguing that though general role has been sought to be leveled and the applicant does not possess criminal history but the ingredients of section 147 of the IPC stands attracted as their pre plan the applicant and other co-

¶10

accused persons assembled therein in order to extend injuries to both the injured.

¶11

Sri Lokesh Kumat, learned counsel for the complainant has adopted the argument of the learned AGA however, he could not dispute the fact that the applicant does not possess any criminal history and general role has been assigned to him however, according to him injuries were sought to be sustained is presence of cuddle, axe and by the sharp and blunt object itself shows that the applicant was present in order to extend injuries.

¶12

Considering the submission so advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, on the question of bail, prima facie this Court finds that this is a fit case for grant of bail as the applicant does not possess any criminal history and only general role has been assigned to him and no specific role has been assigned and looking into the nature of the 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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

Let the applicant Salim 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 :-

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(iv). The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 10.3.2022 Nisha

¶24

Digitally signed by NISHA KUMARI Date: 2022.03.11 10:12:29 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Salim v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salim 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

Saheb Alam @ Doctor Alias Saheb Nut Vs State of U.P.

Monu @ Mannu Vs State of U.P.

Irfan Vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Upendra Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P.