Allowed

Mukeem Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2024/1483/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Mukeem Ahmad under Section 438 Cr.P.C. concerning allegations of criminal acts. The court held that the applicant was not at flight risk, had deep societal roots, and was willing to cooperate with the investigation, thus granting bail with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed subject to furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties and compliance with standard bail conditions.

Mukeem Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:63292

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1483 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mukeem Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dilip Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant application has been moved by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.286 of 2022 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 5-A/8 Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, relating to police station Maheshganj District-Pratapgarh.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that this is the second anticipatory bail application as the first was dismissed as not pressed. It is further submitted that from the averments made in the FIR, apparently, there is no case which can be made out against the applicant. It has further been submitted that the complainant who is real brother of the applicant on account of certain family dispute has named the present applicant for ulterior purposes.

¶9

The applicant has a history of another case wherein the applicant has been enlarged on bail. It is also pointed out that the other co-accused in the instant case namely Arman, Pawan Vishwakarma have already been enlarged on regular bail by the sessions Court.

¶10

It is urged that the alleged incident is of 24.12.2022 and the FIR came to be lodged on 25.12.2022 towards the evening. Since over last approx 2 years nothing has been found against the applicant and in such circumstances the applicant who otherwise has deep roots in the society and is not at flight risk coupled with the fact that he is ready to comply with any condition as well as cooperate in any investigation hence, the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail.

¶11

Learned AGA has opposed the aforesaid bail application and on

¶12

the strength of the averments made in the counter affidavit, it is urged that the witnesses have clearly corroborated the statement as contained in the FIR and the applicant has also been named. In such circumstances, the anticipatory bail application deserves to be dismissed.

¶13

Considering the aforesaid submission and perused the material on record.

¶14

Learned AGA could not dispute the fact that since date of incident they have recorded certain statements but the custodial interrogation of the applicant has not been found to be necessary. The incident where the real brother of the applicant is implicating the applicant who otherwise does not have history of a case except one where he has already been enlarged on bail relating to similar allegations and it is not disputed by the learned AGA that at no point of time the applicant did not cooperate or even attempted to derail the investigation hence, taking holistic view and noticing that the applicant is neither at flight risk and he has deep roots in the society and considering the facts and circumstances and the submission made by respective parties including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the applicant including that no apprehension has been expressed that the applicant is at flight risk, hence, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant can be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶15

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Mukeem Ahmad involved in the aforesaid case shall be released on bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court Concerned, with the conditions:-

¶16

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

¶17

(b) 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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶23

Order Date :- 12.9.2024 Harshita

¶24

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

Mukeem Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukeem Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Yogesh Kumar Vs Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru. Member and Others

Parsnath @ Parsnath Udayaraj Chauhan Vs Sub District Magistrate (Judicial), Tehsil Jalalpur, Ambedkar Nagar and Ors.

Abhay Khare Vs Estate of Late Shri Ram Prakash and Others

Adarsh Nigam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko and 4 Others

Ashok Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Saiyad Ali Ahamar and Another vs Raident Academic Improvement Society, Hardoi and Another