Allowed¶13

Mohd. Haneef v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2024/9042/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 9042 of 2024; Mohd. Haneef v. State of U.P.; decided 23.08.2024 by Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.; bail granted in Case Crime No. 105 of 2024, P.S. Auras, District Unnao; offences under Sections 3/5A/8 Cow Slaughter Act, Section 11 Animal Cruelty Act and Section 429 IPC; grounds: applicant not named in FIR, custody since 12.06.2024, offence triable by magistrate, chargesheet filed; bail conditions incl. Sections 229-A/174-A IPC and Section 82 Cr.P.C.; no opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Mohd. Haneef to be released on bail in Case Crime No. 105 of 2024 on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to conditions (i)-(vi) imposed by the court. ¶13

Mohd. Haneef Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused-applicant Mohd. Haneef should be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 105 of 2024, P.S. Auras, District Unnao.

¶12

Court's answer

Bail granted: considering that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.06.2024, the offences are triable by a magistrate, and the applicant is not named in the F.I.R., the court found it a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Applicant to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to conditions: no tampering with evidence; no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses; no inducement, threat or promise to dissuade disclosure; undertaking not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present; presence before the trial court on each date fixed; and liability to proceedings under Section 229-A IPC, Section 82 Cr.P.C. proclamation and Section 174-A IPC in case of default or misuse of bail liberty.

¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail allowed - Case Crime No. 105 of 2024, P.S. Auras, District Unnao, under Sections 3/5A/8 Cow Slaughter Act, Section 11 Animal Cruelty Act and Section 429 IPC - applicant not named in the F.I.R., in jail since 12.06.2024, offences triable by magistrate, chargesheet filed - held a fit case for enlargement on bail without expressing any opinion on merits - release directed on personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, seeking adjournments when witnesses are present, and remaining present on dates fixed, with consequences under Section 229-A IPC, Section 82 Cr.P.C. and Section 174-A IPC in case of default or misuse (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Karunesh Singh Pawar, J., 23.08.2024).

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:57643

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9042 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Haneef Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Jaikaran Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

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

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.105 of 2024, under Sections 3/5A/8 Cow Slaughter Act, Section 11 Animal Cruelty Act and Section 429 IPC, P.S. Auras, District Unnao.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Applicant is not named in the F.I.R. On the basis of the statement of the father of the owner of the truck applicant came along with the coaccused who took the truck for the offence in question. He submits that there is no direct circumstantial evidence against him. There is no recovery from the applicant. Offence is triable by magistrate. Applicant is in jail since 12.06.2024. The chargesheet has been filed.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer.

¶11

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.06.2024, offences are triable by magistrate so also the fact that applicant is not named in the F.I.R., without expressing

¶12

any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant Mohd. Haneef be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

(iii) 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 officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(iv) 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. 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.

¶19

(v) 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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(vi) 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, then, the trial

¶21

court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

Order Date :- 23.8.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶23

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

Mohd. Haneef v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Haneef v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Home Lko.

Rajesh Mishra @ Rajesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Gurjant Singh Dhillon Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Sushil Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secy. Lko.

Avnish Singh @ Avinash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Irshad Ahmad and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another