Allowed

Syed Mohammad Shoeb Alias Bholu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2023ABAIL/12353/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court enlarged the applicant, Syed Mohammad Shoeb, on anticipatory bail in connection with Case Crime No. 206 of 2023. The court imposed standard conditions, including surrendering the passport and cooperating with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions not to flee, to interfere with witnesses, and to surrender passport.

Syed Mohammad Shoeb Alias Bholu Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:220546

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12353 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Syed Mohammad Shoeb Alias Bholu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sadrul Islam Jafri,Awaish Khan 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 Crime No. 206 of 2023, under sections 307, 504, 341, 506, 34 IPC, P.S.Kareli, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Briefly, the facts of the prosecution case are that the informant, namely, Zibran Asif, registered an FIR on 24.08.2023 to the effect that on 24.08.2023 at about 3.30 P.M., Numan Asif had gone to teach tuition at Kareilly, whom the informant and one Gufran were going to take back from tuition, and as soon as they reached near the tea shop of Shabbu, where applicant along with other co accused persons, namely, Hamad @ Hamdu Maya,Raja and Anas started abusing them and the applicant and other co accused persons namely, Raja and Anas are also said to have caught hold the informant and threw him down and exhorted other co accused person namely, Hamad @ Hamdu Maya to kill him today and thereafter co accused Hamdu is said to have fired upon him as a result of which informant sustained injury and thereafter all the accused persons are said to have ran away from the spot.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that F.I.R. has been lodged against four named accused persons. In the FIR, false allegation has been levelled against the applicant. He further submits that allegations made against the aforesaid applicant are fake and general in nature. The applicant is having definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time. It is further submitted that injury sustained by the injured are on non vital parts and are simple in nature. It is further submitted that the applicant has not been assigned the role of firing or causing any injury to injured.

¶10

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said facts.

¶11

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

¶12

anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant Syed Mohammad Shoeb Alias Bholu involved in the aforesaid 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:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;

¶15

(2) 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; and

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(5) 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.

¶19

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

¶20

(7) 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of.

¶23

Order Date :- 21.11.2023 RavindraKSingh

¶24

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

Syed Mohammad Shoeb Alias Bholu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Mohammad Shoeb Alias Bholu 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

Yashwardhan Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Kajal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devi Pandey @ Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kailash @ Kailash Chand Chaprasi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sumit Kumar @ Sumit Kumar Teotia Vs State of U.P.and 2 Others