Allowed

Mohd. Amir v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC2 May 2024/1055/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed the release of the applicant on bail. The court observed that no witness has been examined despite multiple dates having been adjourned, all other co-accused persons have been granted bail, and the applicant has languished in jail since November 2022. The order grants bail subject to appropriate bonds and conditions, maint

What did the court decide?

The applicant- Mohd. Amir be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in like amounts, subject to standard conditions.

Mohd. Amir Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34273

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1055 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Amir Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Shahzad Ahmad,Akhilendra Pratap Singh,Atul Verma,Faraz Ahmad,Shamshad Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Atul Verma, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Puneet Kumar Yadav, the learned State Counsel and perused the record.

¶8

This is the second bail application seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 384 of 2022, under Sections 147, 323, 294, 307/34, 504, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Jagdishpur, District Amethi. The first bail application No. 5806 of 2023 was rejected by means of an order dated 19.07.2023.

¶9

The second bail application has been moved on the ground that since rejection of the application on 19.07.2023, about 20 dates have been fixed and only charges were framed on 15.11.2023 and not even a single witness has been examined till date.

¶10

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that all the co-accused persons have been granted bail in the present case, whereas the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.11.2022.

¶11

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the bail, but he

¶12

could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that not even a single witness has been examined, though the applicant is languishing in jail since 08.11.2022 and all the other co-accused persons have already been granted bail in the present case and without making any observations which may affect the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant- Mohd. Amir be released on bail in the present case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions: -

¶16

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶17

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶18

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶19

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 2.5.2024 Preeti.

¶21

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Amir v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Amir v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Paras Nath Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 10 Others

Steel Authority of India Ltd. Sultanpur Vs District Judge Lucknow and Another

Naushad Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Thru Divisional Manager Vs Smt. Sirsa Devi and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs Additional Commissioner Admn. Faizabad Mandal and Ors.

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