The application for bail under Sections 457, 396, 120-B, 412, and 34 IPC was rejected. The court held that despite the applicant not being in the FIR, post-arrest recovery of stolen ornaments and CCTV evidence showing accomplices exiting the scene made him a fit subject to detention during trial.
The bail application was rejected; the applicant remained in custody.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:104332
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11235 of 2023
Applicant :- Sajid Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Tripathi I Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
from some other persons including applicant and the alleged recovery was also made on the pointing out of the applicant, therefore, there are clinching evidences against applicant and he should not be released on bail.
Order Date :- 15.5.2023
Ankita
Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is a fit case to be released on bail given the recovery of stolen articles and CCTV footage indicating his complicity.
Whether the delay in naming the applicant in the FIR warrants granting bail despite the strength of later-investigation evidence.
Sajid
State of U.P.
Samer Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
