Allowed

Sulaiman v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Oct 2023ABAIL/11416/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J. granted anticipatory bail to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. without expressing opinion on merits, directing compliance with conditions laid down in Sushila Aggarwal case and imposing personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement on anticipatory bail by personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties, subject to specific conditions including court appearance and non-interference.

Sulaiman Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:199828

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11416 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sulaiman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Zafar Abbas,Sarve Nazir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case No.702 of 2019 (State of U.P. Vs. Aslam and others) arising out of Case Crime No.496 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S.- Jalaun, District- Jalaun.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He submitted that earlier, the applicant has approached this Court for anticipatory bail in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 596 of 2022 and co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.02.2023 granted bail to the applicant till submission of police report under 173(2) Cr.P.C.. He submitted that now, the charge sheet has been submitted and the applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest. He further submitted that co-accused- Shadab Hussain @ Bittu and Mohd Sabir @ Haleem Langda have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.7894 of 2023, vide order dated 27.7.2023, copy of the same is produced by learned counsel for the applicant, is kept on record. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 34 of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 . The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶11

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Sulaiman, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the trial.

¶13

(ii) 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 or to any police officer.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶16

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶17

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila

¶18

Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶19

(vii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶20

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands allowed.

¶22

Order Date :- 16.10.2023 Krishna*

¶23

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sulaiman v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulaiman 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

Mukesh Sahu Vs State of U.P.

Chotu @ Dharmendra Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Prakash Singh @ Deepak Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lalu Kumar @ Chandrakeshwar Vs State of U.P.

Purananand Vs State of U.P.

Vivek Vs State of U.P.