Allowed

Kalim v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2023ABAIL/680/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an anticipatory bail application by Kalim in a case involving illegal possession of domestic cylinders under the Excise Act. The court imposed standard conditions including appearance before courts and non-interference with witnesses, granting bail till the conclusion of trial.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial on furnishing personal and two sureties with specific conditions.

Kalim Vs State of U.P. and Another — Narcotics (NDPS) | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 680 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Kalim Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Sri P.N. Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Dinesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.596 of 2022, registered under Sections 3/7 of Excise Act, 1955 at Police Station- Deoband, District Saharanpur with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

As per prosecution story, fourteen domestic cylinders were recovered from the house of the applicant on 16.09.2022 on the information of a squealer.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There was a function of Hakika in the house, which is filed as annexure no.3 to the anticipatory bail application. He has nothing to do with the said offence. 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. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has cooperated 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.

¶10

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.

¶11

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned

¶12

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.

¶13

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Kalim 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:-

¶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 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 below 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

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 19.4.2023 Ravi Kant

¶24

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

Kalim v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalim v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Shubham Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Furkan Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Manchanda Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Imran Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Reeta Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hafiz Mehraj Vs State of U.P.