Allowed

Saleem Qurashi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2022BAIL/51802/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by Saleem Qurashi in a dacoity and theft case. The court held it fit to grant bail despite the case being complete, subject to strict conditions ensuring trial attendance and preventing misjudgment by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was directed to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to multiple conditions of attendance and conduct.

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

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 51802 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Saleem Qurashi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Agarval,Dilip Kumar Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant seeking enlargement on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 595 of 2021, under Sections 460, 382, 411, 120-B IPC, P.S. Anoopshahr, District Bulandshahr.

¶7

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant is not named in the FIR and his implication has been surfaced after two months of the incident in the confessional statement of co-accused Rahees @ Natwar and Sahroz. The applicant has no concern with the alleged crime. It is further submitted that nothing has been recovered from house of the applicant. There is no independent witness of the incident.

¶8

It is pointed out that co-accused, Rahees @ Natwar and Shahroz have already been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide orders dated 15.7.2022 and 16.5.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12509 of 2022 & 5181 of 2022 respectively. It is further submitted that co accused Sonu Banjara has already been granted bail by this court vide order dated 15.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc Bail Application No. 35068 of 2022. The applicant claims parity. It is also submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 8.10.2022.

¶9

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposes the application for bail. He submits that the investigation is now complete and the charge sheet has been filed.

¶10

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶11

Let the applicant- Saleem Qurashi, who is involved in aforementioned 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

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not

¶13

seek any adjournment on the date 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 IPC.

¶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., may be issued and if 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 IPC.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) 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

(v) The Trial Court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the applicant.

¶18

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

¶19

It is made clear that 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.

¶20

Order Date :- 29.11.2022/RavindraKSingh

¶21

Digitally signed by RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.11.29 16:33:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saleem Qurashi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saleem Qurashi 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

Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Bhan Vs State of U.P and Another

Akash Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Sheetla Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Dharmendra Khatik Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others