Allowed

Yaseen Qadri v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Mar 2023BAIL/58564/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, while not expressing an opinion on the merits of the case, allowed the bail application of Yaseen Qadri. The court considered the parity with a co-accused already released and significant jail overcrowding under Article 21 of the Constitution.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties in the like amount; standard conditions imposed regarding tampering with evidence, attending trial, and not commissioning new cr

Yaseen Qadri Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 58564 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Yaseen Qadri Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- A Kumar Srivastava,Anand Mohan Pandey,Nitin Sharma,Ram Raj Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

The submission is that co-accused,Bhagirath Verma has already been enlarged on bail vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 51767 of 2022 on 23.12.2022 and the case of the applicant stands on identical footing, hence the applicant is also entitled for bail for the reasons given in bail application of coaccused on the ground of parity. The applicant is in jail since 10.10.2022.

¶7

On the other hand learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶8

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering the recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶9

Let the applicant, Yaseen Qadri, involved in Case Crime No. 177 of 2022, under Sections 420, 406 IPC, Police Station- Sungarhi District- Pilibhit, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties

¶10

be verified.

¶11

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶12

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶13

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶14

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 ofÏcer;

¶15

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶16

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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 16.3.2023 Atul kr. sri.

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yaseen Qadri v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yaseen Qadri 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Mittal Vs State of U.P.

Ashish Kumar Niranjan Vs State of U.P.

Ankit Vs State of U.P.

Yaseen Qadri Vs State of U.P.

Ang Pratap Man Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sonu @ Satmola @ Satya Prakash Vs State of U.P.