Allowed

Mustakeem v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Jan 2023BAIL/59527/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal miscellaneous bail application filed by Mustakeem challenging his arrest in a case involving blowing up a cylinder causing death. The Court allowed bail subject to standard conditions by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Mustakeem Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 59527 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mustakeem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Daga Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution story in brief that the Sub-Inspector, Ram Sanehi got a information that in a house, a cylinder was blasted. On intimating the Senior Official, he reached on the spot, where the Fire Team, Police Team, FSL, NDRF Team were also present. One Shamima was died, due to aforesaid incident, on query, it was told that one Mustaqeem (applicant), frequently visits the house of deceased, is engaged explosive substance for making the crackers and the incident is culminated due to his act. Learned counsel has submitted that the applicant was neither present on the spot nor is engaged in such explosive substance and that the applicant has been merely implicated on the ground of suspicion as well as confessional statement of the coaccused. He next submits that neither there is FSL report nor there is Fire Team report. He next submits that nothing has been recovered either from the possession of the applicant or on his pointing out and that the alleged recovery has been from the pointing out of the owner of the house, where cylinder was blasted. He next submits that the perusal of the charge sheet

¶7

goes to show that there is only three witnesses, who are none else but the police personnel and that there is no independent witness or eye-witness of the alleged incident. He also argued that after false implication of the applicant in the instant case, one more case under Explosive Substance Act has been slapped upon the applicant, in which, he has already been enlarged on bail by the learned Court below vide order dated 22.07.2022, copy of which is at page 94-95 of the paper book. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 02.07.2022 having no criminal history.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is engaged in the explosive substance and thus he is not entitled to be released on bail but could not dispute that there is no FSL report on record.

¶9

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence, and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence the bail application is allowed.

¶10

Let applicant Mustakeem involved in Case Crime No.367 of 2022 under Section 304 I.P.C., Section 3/4/5 of The Explosive Substance Act, Police Station Lisari Gate, District Meerut, be

¶11

released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶12

A. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶13

B. The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶14

C. The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶15

D. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is an accused, or suspected, of the commission of he is suspected.

¶16

E. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant in accordance with law.

¶18

Order Date :- 30.1.2023 S.Ali

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mustakeem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mustakeem 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suhani Mishra @ Seema Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Rajveer @ Indrapal Vs State of U.P.

Vipin Vs State of U.P.

Arun Kumar Rawat Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bablu Rajput Alias Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Yadav Vs State of U.P.