Allowed

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

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2024/8517/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow Bench granted bail to the applicant in a criminal trial under Sections 307 and 364 IPC. The court considered the applicant's distinguishable role, lack of FIR naming, and absence of prior criminal record, enforcing strict conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and securing attendance.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail conditioned upon personal bond and sureties, with specific undertakings to avoid tampering with witnesses and ensure court appearance.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:70751

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8517 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shameen Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Smriti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.297 of 2024, under Sections 307, 364 I.P.C., P.S. Bilgram, District Hardoi.

¶8

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. She submits that the main role has been assigned to one Hashim and neither the applicant is named in the F.I.R. nor the victim has told the name of the present applicant and the name of the applicant came into light in the confessional statement of Hashim. He submits that the weapon of assault has been recovered from Hashim. He further added that the role of the present applicant is distinguishable from that of the co-accused Hashim and there is no previous criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 14 of the bail application and the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.6.2024 and in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that after thorough investigation, it was found that the present applicant is involved in committing the offence and there is ample evidence against him and, as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶10

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that the role of the present applicant distinguishable from that of the co-accused Hashim; the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and his name came into light in the confessional statement of the co-accused; there is no

¶11

previous criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 14 of the bail application; the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.6.2024 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant Shameen involved in the aforementioned 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, with the following conditions:-

¶14

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

¶15

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;

¶16

(3) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶17

(4) 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. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly

¶20

confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶21

Order Date :- 21.10.2024 Ram Murti

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shameen 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

Ram Bachan Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vandana Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Praveen Kumar Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

Chandan Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Bhoora Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Bhoora vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another