Allowed

Nisar Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2024/630/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application concerning the recovery of a newborn child, the Allahabad High Court allowed bail to the applicant, noting his lack of prior record and that co-accused have already been released, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Accused applicant released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to three specific conditions regarding trial conduct.

Nisar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:13280

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 630 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Nisar Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Nisar Ahmad for grant of bail, in Case Crime No. 409 of 2023, under Section 311 of I.P.C., Police Station- Pachpedwa, District- Balrampur, during trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. Applicant is not connected with the hospital wherein the child has taken birth and the allegation that the said child has been recovered from the house/ possession of the applicant, is absolutely false, concocted and could not be believed in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶9

It is further submitted that the allegation of the prosecution is to the tune that the newly born child has been stolen from the hospital and the same was given by Dr. Arkam Jamal to the applicant, however, the applicant is himself blessed with two children (one son and one daughter) and therefore, there was no occasion or opportunity for the applicant to have stolen or received the stolen child in his custody.

¶10

It is next submitted that applicant is in jail in this case since 14.12.2023 and he is not having any criminal history, chargesheet in this case has already been submitted and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail the applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. Co-accused persons, namely, Dr. Hafizur Rahman and Dr. Arkam Jamal, whose role in the alleged crime appears to be more graver than the applicant, have been released on bail by this Court vide orders dated 11.01.2024 and 29.01.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.383 of 2024 and 961 of

¶11

¶12

Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed an heinous offence and the child has also been recovered from his possession and therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that charge sheet in this case has already been submitted. Co-accused persons, namely, Dr. Hafizur Rahman and Dr. Arkam Jamal have been released on bail by this Court. The role of the instant applicant is of receiving the stolen child. The defence of the applicant appears to be that he has already been blessed with two children (one son and one daughter) and therefore, no one may believe that despite being blessed by two children, he would steal or receive the stolen child. Applicant is in jail in this case since 14.12.2023 without any previous criminal history. The presence of the applicant could be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶14

Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed .

¶15

Let the accused/applicant- Nisar Ahmad involved in abovementioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and

¶21

sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶22

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case.

¶23

Order Date :- 13.2.2024 Gurpreet Singh

¶24

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

Nisar Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nisar Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashish Kumar Tripathi Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Ajeet Kumar Gupta @ Ajeet Gupta Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Secrt. Home Deptt. Lko.

Monu Tiwari @ Rohit Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 4 Others

Arun Kumar Singh and Another Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Dhiraj Bahadur Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dhiraj Bahadur Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko.