Allowed

Shakil @ Khunti v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Mar 2022BAIL/7276/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by an applicant accused under U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. The Single Judge allowed the bail application considering the nature of the acquisition of evidence, the gravity of the offence, and the prevailing pandemic situation preventing jail overcrowding.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed with the applicant furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount with conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and committing further crimes.

Shakil @ Khunti Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7276 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Shakil @ Khunti Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ruhi Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Ruhi Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Avneesh Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. who appears for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶6

This bail application purported to be under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of applicant for enlarging him on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 214 of 2021 under Sections 3/5/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, registered at Police Station- Kasganj, District- Kasganj.

¶7

The bail application so preferred by the applicant has been rejected by the court below on 23.06.2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant has been falsely been implicated in the present case. He has committed no offence. He has further sought to contend that the recovery of 60 kg cow meat and one knife so sought to be shown from the applicant is planted one. There is no independent witness of the alleged recovery. He further sought to argue that even in fact the the laboratory report has not been obtained as to whether the meat which has been sought to shown from the applicant is Beef. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court towards paragraph 18 of the bail application so as to contend that so far as Case Crime No. 428 of 2020 under Section 379 and 411 I.P.C. is concerned, the applicant stands released on bail. Learned counsel has further argued that the applicant is unnecessarily languishing in jail since 12.04.2021. He lastly argued that in case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Countering the said submissions, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail while arguing that offence has been committed by the applicant, as such he has been proceeded in the case in question, but he could not dispute the fact that the applicant has been enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case and he has explained the criminal history.

¶10

Considering the submissions so advanced by the learned 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 applicant has explained the criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 12.04.2021, 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.

¶11

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.

¶12

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

¶13

Let the applicant- Shakil @ Khunti 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 :-

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 10.3.2022 CS/-

¶23

Digitally signed by CHANDAN SINGH Date: 2022.03.14 17:08:37 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shakil @ Khunti v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakil @ Khunti 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

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.