Allowed

Imran v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2023ABAIL/12616/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, finding the case made out despite only a co-accused statement being available as evidence.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding appearance and non-interference.

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

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12616 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Imran Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shazia Afzal,Irfan Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Srijan Pandey, Advocate holding brief for Sri Irfan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the papers on record.

¶6

The present application has been moved on behalf of the applicantImran seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0137 of 2020, under sections- 3/5/8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, Police Station- Kairana, District- Shamli.

¶7

As per prosecution case, on the basis of a confidential information received by the local police; that certain persons were indulging in illegal slaughtering of cow, a police team arrived and apprehended two persons on the spot, i.e., Sabir and Muntiyaz but the third one the present applicant- Imran managed to escape whose name was disclosed by the coaccused persons; it is said that about 3 quintal of beef and certain fire arm was recovered from them.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that his name has come up in the statement given by the co-accused persons before the police and that this piece of statement is having nil evidentiary value and that he has been falsely implicated for ulterior movies; hence, his liberty deserves to be protected by grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. It is also contended that the applicant was granted anticipatory bail till filing of charge-sheet by an order dated 07.07.2020 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) No.3889 of 2020 and that he did not misuse the liberty so granted and continued to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court.

¶9

The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by the learned A.G.A. for the State; however it is conceded that the only piece of evidence against him is the statement given by the co-accused and that the conditions imposed by the Court while granting anticipatory bail till filing of charge-sheet were not violated.

¶10

In case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 , it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶11

I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and

¶12

circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶13

Let the applicant, Imran involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the same amount to the satisfaction of court concerned, subject to the conditions as below:-

¶14

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

(ii) that 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 or tamper with the evidence;

¶16

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶17

(iv) that the applicant shall not without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶18

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶19

(vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted.

¶20

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶21

10. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion at any stage of the case based on material before him.

¶22

Order Date :- 23.1.2023 Gaurav/Saif

¶23

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Imran v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran 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

Shamim Khan Vs State of U.P and Another

Sanjeev Gautam Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rahis Mohammad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Danish Vs State of U.P.

Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Kamlesh Patel @ Kallu and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another