Allowed

Lukman @ Usman v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2022BAIL/46181/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant in a bail application for offences under IPC sections 328, 386, and 388. The Court upheld the grant of bail on the basis of parity with co-accused persons who had already been released and accepted the applicant's bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 283 of 2022 by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46181 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Lukman @ Usman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

1.Heard Sri Atul Pandey, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

2.The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 283 of 2022, under Sections 328, 386, 388 IPC, P.S. Kairana, District Shamli.

¶7

3.The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 10.06.2022 against three named accused persons, not including the applicant, and two unknown men and one woman, alleging that the named co-accused Salim @ Dhela had borrowed Rs.10,000/-from the informant about an year ago and when the informant repetitively demanded repayment of the amount, Nazim took him to a place on his motorcycle and offered him some drink, after consuming which the informant became unconscious and when he regained consciousness, all the accused persons present there told that they had prepared an obscene video of the informant and under threat of defaming him, they extracted huge amounts from the informant on several occasions.

¶8

4.The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the co-accused persons Nazim and Intazar have already been granted bail by means of orders dated 20.10.2022 and 13.10.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No. 36709 of 2022 and 37522 of 2022 respectively.

¶9

5.It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the case set up against the applicant is similar to that set up against the other co-accused persons, who have already been released on bail, therefore, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶10

6.It has been averred in the affidavit filed in support of the bail

¶11

application that the applicant is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in the case, he is having no previous criminal history and he is in jail since .10.07.2022. It has also been stated in the affidavit that there is no possibility of the applicant tampering with any evidence and in such circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. It is also stated in the affidavit that the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and he will fully cooperate in the investigation.

¶12

7.A supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant discloses his involvement in two cases and in Case Crime No. 683 of 2022, under Sections 328, 386, 338 IPC, P.S. Kairana, District Shamli, the applicant has been granted bail by means of an order dated 28.11.2022 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 47755 of 2022.

¶13

8.The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is not named in the FIR and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶14

9.On the basis of instructions, the learned AGA opposing the prayer for grant of bail, has stated that the named co-accused Nazim had implicated the applicant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and he has stated that the applicant was involved in videography of the incident. On the basis of the custodial statement of co-accused Nazim, the applicant was arrested and it is alleged that in his custodial statement, he has confessed his complicity in the offence.

¶15

10.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he could not dispute that the case set up against the applicant is similar to that set up against the other co-accused persons, who have already been released on bail.

¶16

11.Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the FIR states that five men were involved in commission of offence, two of whom have already been granted bail and the case set up against the applicant is similar to that set up against the co-accused persons, who have already granted bail, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail in the aforesaid case.

¶17

12.Let the applicant - Lukman @ Usman be released on bail in Case Crime No. 283 of 2022, under Sections 328, 386, 388 IPC, P.S. Kairana, District Shamli, on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶20

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶21

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

¶22

13.In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application bail before this Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶23

Order Date :- 9.12.2022 Ashish Pd.

¶24

Digitally signed by ASHISH PRASAD Date: 2022.12.13 13:23:04 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Lukman @ Usman v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lukman @ Usman 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shrinath Maurya Vs State of U.P.

Mahendra Kumar Seth Vs State of U.P.

Pappu Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Geeta Devi Vs State of U.P.

Priya Ranjan Vs State of U.P.

Akash @ Chinna Vs State of U.P.