Allowed

Nayeem v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Oct 2023BAIL/44407/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of the applicant, Nayeem, by the principle of parity, noting that four other co-accused in the same FIR had been granted bail for similar allegations. Bail was granted with co-defendants requiring a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail in FIR No.0156 of 2023 on personal bond and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:207228

¶2

Court No. - 44

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 44407 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Nayeem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶7

2. The FIR in question was lodged against as many as 18 persons. Out of the said, four persons against whom similar allegations were levelled have been enlarged on bail vide separate orders. It has also been stated that one of the co-accused has also been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 30.10.2023 in bail application no.44365 of 2023.

¶8

3. Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

¶9

4. Considering the fact that the allegations levelled against the applicant are similar to the co-accused who have been enlarged on bail, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. In view thereof, the application is allowed.

¶10

5. Let the applicant Nayeem be released on bail in FIR No.0156 of 2023, under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 504 IPC, Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act & Section 3/25/27 of Arms Act, P.S. Bahsuma, District Meerut on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of court concerned with the following conditions:

¶11

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings; (b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶12

(c) 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.

¶13

Order Date :- 30.10.2023 VNP/-

¶14

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nayeem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nayeem 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunwar Sahab Singh Vs Distt. Magistrate Pratapgarh and 2 Others

Madhu Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Food U.P. Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and 6 Others

Canara Bank,Meerut Thru. Chief Manager and Constituted Attorney Mr. Bobby Seth Vs Debt Recovery Tribunal,Lucknow and 3 Others

Abhay Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Jaris Vs State of U.P.

Ajay @ Ajju Vs State of U.P.