Allowed

Aquib Nasim v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2024/7023/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-handed judge allowed a criminal bail application filed by an accused involved in three similar nature cases. The court granted bail based on the ground that a differently placed co-accused was already released on bail, invoking the principle of parity.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount, subject to specific conditions regarding presence in court and non-tampering.

Aquib Nasim Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:54370

¶2

Court No. - 31

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7023 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Aquib Nasim Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Desh Mitra Anand,Utkarsh Anand Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brijesh Singh Vishen

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

The instant bail application is being heard through Video Conferencing.

¶7

None is present on behalf of the informant even in the revised call.

¶8

Heard Sri Desh Mitra Anand, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Raj Deep Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 733 of 2021, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C., Police Station - Gomti Nagar, District - Lucknow, during the pendency of trial.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that similarly placed co-accused person, Saba Khan @ Saba Fatima, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 23.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4742 of 2022. It is further submitted that since the case of the applicant is at par to the co-accused, who has already been enlarged on bail, he is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶11

In all three cases of similar nature have been foisted on the applicant and all the bail applications are pending before this Court. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.04.2024. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial.

¶12

The prayer for bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of parity to the coaccused has not been disputed by him.

¶13

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 , the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶14

In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, evidence on record, pending trial and in the light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 coupled with the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 , without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶16

Let the applicant- Aquib Nasim , who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶17

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

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

¶20

It is made clear that observations made in granting 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.

¶21

Order Date:- 7.8.2024 Siddhant

¶22

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶23

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

Aquib Nasim v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aquib Nasim v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sarvesh Kumar Sharma and Another vs State of Up and Another

Smt Reena vs State of Up and Another

Rajbahadur vs State of U.P. and Another

Neeraj Agarawal Vs Union of India Thru. Sontosh Tiwari Senior Intelligence Officer Directorate Revenue Lko

Amar Pal Maurya Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Ashish Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others