Kaleem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:51148

Court No. - 17

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8133 of 2024

Applicant :- Kaleem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.67 of 2024 under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506, 304 I.P.C., Police Station Maholi, District Sitapur, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent person and he is in jail since 6.2.2024. He further submits that coaccused, Eliyas having identical role, have already been granted bail by this Court, vide order dated 18.6.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6393 of 2024 (bail order provided by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record). In these circumstances, the applicant is also entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer of the applicant for grant of bail, but he conceded the fact that co-accused Eliyas have already been granted bail by this Court.

¶10

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record, contents of the F.I.R., other relevant documents, bail order of the co-accused, Eliyas, ground of parity as well as totality of fact and circumstances, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

Let applicant - Kaleem - be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal

¶12

bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶14

(ii) 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.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶17

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶18

(vi) 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 sufÏcient 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

Order Date :- 29.7.2024 Gaurav/-

¶21

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Raghunandanshitaldan Singh Memorial Trust, Thru. Its Manager Sri Santosh Singh, Azamgarh Vs Dr. B.N. Singh, Chairman, U.P. Homeopathic Medicine Board, Homeopathy Bhawan Lko. and Another

Habbu @ Ankur Saroj Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home Deptt., Lko.

Adarsh Pratap Singh Vs Vineet Jaiswal, Superintendent of Police, Dist. Gonda and Another

Anushthan Tripathi Vs Sri Deepak Kumar, Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Police, Lko.

Rabindra Nath Pandey Vs Sanjay Pandey, Chief Executive Officer (Mukhya Karya Palak Adhikari) Distt. Coop., Bank Ltd. Unnao

Aditya Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.