Allowed

Mushahid v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2023ABAIL/2267/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court granted relief to a student accused of recording video evidence of his father giving a bribe to police officials. The court noted the applicant was not named in the FIR and enlarged him on bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The accused-applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail, conditioned to appear before the trial court within seven days and furnish personal bond and two sureties if not already done so.

Mushahid Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2267 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mushahid Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Tripathee Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant and the learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0005 of 2021, under Sections 7/8/9/12/13(1)(d)(ii) and 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B IPC, Police Station Shahi, District Bareilly.

¶7

Accused-applicant is not named in the FIR. The accusedapplicant is a student of Operation Theater Technician. It appears that father of the accused-applicant was given some bribe amount to Sub-inspector, Haridas Verma and Head Constable Mohd. Nazim in relation to FIR No.413 of 2020, under Sections 354B and 506 IPC on the complaint of Smt. Zarina. Despite the complainant being wife of Tanzaeel Ahmad, the bribe amount was asked.

¶8

Allegation against the accused-applicant is that he made video of the said incident. A person can not be made accused if he collects the evidence regarding giving and accepting bribe.

¶9

Considering the fact that the accused-applicant is a student and the allegation against him is to the extent that he made video while his father was giving bribe to two police persons, it would be appropriate to enlarge the accused-applicant on anticipatory bail.

¶10

Accordingly, it is directed that the accused-applicant shall appear before the trial court within a period of seven days from today and furnish personal bod and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, if already not furnished, and the trial court should enlarge the accused-applicant on anticipatory bail on putting conditions as it deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶11

With the above observation/direction, the anticipatory bail application is disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 28.1.2023 Rao/-

¶13

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mushahid v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mushahid 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

Smt. Hema and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Mahadevi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ishtiyak @ Nanhu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Janardan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashwani Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P.

Vipin Kumar Vs State of U.P.