Allowed

Masoom Ali @ Syed Masoom Mehdi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2023ABAIL/6191/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by an applicant accused of theft. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent, finding the applicant liable to be released on bail with personal and two sureties, subject to various conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant as a matter of right on anticipatory bail subject to furnishing of personal and two sureties bonds and compliance with specified conditions.

Masoom Ali @ Syed Masoom Mehdi Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:137622

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6191 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Masoom Ali @ Syed Masoom Mehdi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Zia Uddin Ahmad,Mohammad Sufiyan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Zia Uddin Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, 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 Crime No.0067 of 2022, registered under Sections 379 and 411 IPC at Police StationAttarsuiya, District Prayagraj with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, some unknown persons are stated to have stolen scooty no. UP 70CY 5006 of the informant on 18.05.2022.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is not named in the FIR. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents to his credit. In all, four cases have been instituted against the applicant of similar nature and the applicant has been enlarged on bail in two of such cases. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the

¶12

submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

(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;

¶17

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

¶18

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 12.7.2023 Ravi Kant

¶25

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

Masoom Ali @ Syed Masoom Mehdi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Masoom Ali @ Syed Masoom Mehdi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Baburam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Raw Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nazim Vs State of U.P.

Kailash Solanki @ Kailash Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Radha Charan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Himanshi Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Another