Imran v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant in a non-bailable warrant case pending trial for considerable time without concluding. The state failed to show apprehension of witness tampering.
What did the court decide?
Order for release on bail with personal bond and heavy sureties subject to conditions of appearing, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving the district.
What the court decided
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:229196
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 47796 of 2023
Applicant :- Imran Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Balbir Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
- Supplementary affidavit filed by counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
- Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the state.
- The present bail application has been filed by the applicantRaghuveer to enlarge him on bail in Case No. 437 of 2002, under Sections 380 and 411 of I.P.C and Section 2/3 of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, Police Station Delhi Gate, District Aligarh, during the pendency of trial.
- Counsel for the applicant submits that earlier the applicant was granted bail by this Court on 11.02.2003. Though, the applicant participated in the trial for considerable period, the trial could not conclude and at the same time due to unavoidable reasons the applicant could not appear before the court concerned on the certain dates. Consequently, non-bailable warrant was issued. The applicant surrendered on 22.08.2023 and since then he is in jail. Learned counsel for the applicant on the basis of instructions submits that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall appear regularly before the trial court and shall not leave the station without permission of the court concerned.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail having remained in jail for over three months with no prospect of trial conclusion.
Whether the State has shown reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Imran
- respondent
State of U.P.
Coram
Vivek Varma
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · December
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/47796/2023
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court