Allowed

Nazim v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2023ABAIL/6449/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Nazim against accused of unauthorized medical practice and cheating. The court cited Sushila Aggarwal and imposed standard conditions including surrender, non-tampering, and appearance before trial court.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial with two sureties and conditions including availability for interrogation, non-tampering, and appearance on trial dates.

Nazim Vs State of U.P. — Medical Negligence | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:136085

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6449 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Nazim Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Madan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Madan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, 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.104 of 2021 registered under Sections 15 (2) and 15 (3) Medical Act and Section 420 I.P.C. at Police Station- Nagfani, District Moradabad with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant was found running a clinic without licence by the authorities on 24.08.2021.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR is delayed by one day and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant is a bona fide person and has nothing to do with the said offence. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. 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 submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned

¶13

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- Nazim 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 :- 11.7.2023 Ravi Kant

¶25

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

Nazim v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazim 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

Raj Babbar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivkant @ Ramu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Diwakar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Baburam Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Narendra Manani Vs State of U.P. and Another