Uzma Bano Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:230886

Court No. - 72

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12691 of 2023

Applicant :- Uzma Bano Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case No.430 of 2020 (State vs. Parvez Ahmad) arising out of Case Crime No.261 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420 and 406 IPC at Police Station- Jaitpura, District Varanasi with a prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that coaccused person Parvez Ahmad has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 20.4.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.2951 of 2023. Therefore, the present applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that she will cooperate in the trial failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

¶10

The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by her.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Apex

¶12

Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶13

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Uzma Bano be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i). that the applicant shall make herself 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 her 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 the previous permission of the court;

¶17

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not 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

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶22

Order Date :- 6.12.2023 Ravi Kant

¶23

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Uzma Bano v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uzma Bano v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Geeta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satyaram Vs State of U.P.

Amir Vs State of U.P.

Shabeena and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Vs State of U.P.

Atul Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another