Mohd. Shamim Ahmed @ Mohd. Samim Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:53719

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1020 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Shamim Ahmed @ Mohd. Samim Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Paritosh Sharan Agrawal,Sartaj Ali Ansari,Vinod Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

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

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.296 of 2023, under Section 370 (5) I.P.C., P.S. GRP Charbagh Lucknow, District-GRP Section Lucknow.

¶9

In the prosecution case it is alleged that the informant came to know through secret informer that four people are taking seven minor children for child labour in coach No.D4 and S3 of Train No.15279 (Purabiya Express). Information was provided to RPF Charbagh and GRP Control thereafter, bogies D4 and S3 were searched and four people were found with seven minor children who were taking them to Delhi. The minor children have stated that they were going for child labour. The accused have confessed that they were taking children for child labour for consideration of informant they will be paid Rs.5000-6000 per month.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 28.07.2023, statements of mother of victim Nos.1, 2 and 5 are

¶11

on record which falsified the prosecution story. It is stated therein that children were being sent to their relatives and not for child labour.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer.

¶13

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.07.2023 having no criminal history, charge-sheet has been filed in this case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶15

Let the applicant Mohd. Shamim Ahmed @ Mohd. Samim be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶16

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

(iii) 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.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when 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.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

Order Date :- 5.8.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Shamim Ahmed @ Mohd. Samim v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Shamim Ahmed @ Mohd. Samim v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Tushar Deewan Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home and Anr.

Abhimanyu Kumar Rai Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Home Civil Sectt and Another

Vikas Singh Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home, Civil Secretariat

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dalbag Singh @ Dilbag Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Lavkush Alias Lavkush Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.