Allowed

Monu@Naseem v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC5 Oct 2023BAIL/56650/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Monu @ Naseem. The applicant sought bail in a case registered under Section 394 IPC where a co-accused had been acquitted. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent and granted bail subject to several conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of Monu @ Naseem on anticipatory bail subject to conditions including appearance, no tampering, and cooperation.

Monu@Naseem Vs State of U.P and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:191774

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 56650 of 2019

¶4

Applicant :- Monu@Naseem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

Heard Sri Shriyansh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶9

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 384 of 2019, registered under Sections 394 I.P.C. at Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Banda with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is not named in the FIR, although it was mentioned that the main accused person Khadimulla alongwith one unknown person were present at the time of offence. Learned counsel has stated that the named accused person Khadimulla has been acquitted by the trial court vide order dated 15.7.2023 passed in Special Session Trial No.136 of 2019, as such, the doctrine of stare decisis is applicable to the present case. There is no likelihood of conviction of the applicant in the present case as well.

¶11

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. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel has stated that 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

¶12

cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but could not dispute the said fact regarding acquittal of the named co-accused person.

¶14

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned 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.

¶15

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

¶16

(i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶17

(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;

¶18

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶19

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶20

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶21

(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶22

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶23

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶24

Order Date :- 5.10.2023 Vikas

¶25

[Krishan Pahal, J.]

¶26

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Monu@Naseem v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monu@Naseem 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

Anand Kumar @ Anand Kumar Gaud Vs State of U.P. through Its Secretory and 5 Others

Jyoti Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Jwala Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Rajveer Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Satya Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Damyanti Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.