Allowed

Kaiyum v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2023BAIL/10912/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the applicant, Kaiyum, who was in jail facing trial. The court held that since a similarly placed co-accous had already been granted bail in a bail application, the applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding appearance and conduct during trial.

Kaiyum Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:144989

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10912 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Kaiyum Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Singh Bais Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ch. Dil Nisar

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Singh Bais, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Ch. Dil Nisar, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

By means of this application, the applicant, Kaiyum, who is involved in Case Crime No. 472 of 2022, under Sections 366, 376D IPC, Police Station Gangoh, District- Saharanpur and is in jail since 24.11.2022 is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused, Shobhan Alias Soban, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 13.2.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4834 of 2023. He has further submitted that since the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused, Shobhan Alias Soban, who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity and for the reasons given in the order of co-accused.

¶9

The prayer for bail has vehemently been opposed by learned A.G.A.

¶10

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A., this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail on the ground of parity.

¶11

In view of the above, let the applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶12

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the

¶13

witnesses.

¶14

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iv) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation then the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(v) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶18

In case, of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶20

Order Date :- 20.7.2023 Rohit

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kaiyum v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaiyum 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

Rajkumar Vs State of U.P.

Arvind Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Heera Lal Saroj Vs State of U.P.

Suraj @ Subedar Vs State of U.P.