Allowed

Saleem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC27 May 2024/3016/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J. allowed the bail application of Saleem, directing his release on personal bond and two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each in FIR No.316/2023 under Sections 386, 411 IPC and Arms Act, considering co-accused enlargement and explained criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail subject to personal bond and two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, undertaking to attend hearings and not commit similar offences or tamper with evidence.

Saleem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40708

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3016 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Saleem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Gupta,Akhilendra Pratap Singh,Amir Ahmad Ansari,Atul Verma,Syed Mohammad Parvaiz Yousif,Vivek Soni Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Supplementary afÏdavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant prays for certain correction in the memo of bail application.

¶8

The correction sought appears to be genuine and bonafide, as the prayer for making correction in the memo of bail application is allowed. Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to make necessary corrections in the memo of bail application, forthwith.

¶9

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

¶10

The applicant seeks enlargement on bail in FIR No.316 of 2023 under Sections 386, 411 I.P.C. and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, Police StationGomti Nagar Vistaar, District Lucknow.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that co accused Sitabi with almost similar allegations, was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 22.5.2024. From the said co accused, allegedly Rs.1,38,000/- was recovered while from the applicant, allegedly Rs.2,20,000/- was recovered. He thus argues that the applicant having criminal history which has been duly explained in paragraph 21 of the afÏdavit filed in support of the bail application and he is in jail since 24.12.2023, hence he may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposes the bail application.

¶13

Considering the allegations against the applicant to be similar to that of the co accused Satibi coupled with the fact that the applicant is in jail since 24.12.2023 having criminal history duly explained in paragraph 21 of the afÏdavit filed in support of the bail application, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant Saleem be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶16

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶17

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offences of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶18

(c) 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 or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

Order Date :- 27.5.2024 Shukla

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Saleem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saleem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Faiz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko.

Dileep Verma alias D.K. alias Avinash alias Chaudhary Vs The State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Home Govt. of U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow.

Manoj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mohd. Sarik Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vikas Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Alok Kumar Mitra Vs Union of India and Another