Allowed

Mohd. Saleem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Home Lko

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2024ABAIL/1952/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant sought anticipatory bail in a shooting case under Sections 307, 506 IPC, alleging false implication amid a matrimonial dispute. With charge-sheet filed, no criminal history and cooperation in investigation, interim protection was made absolute and the application allowed.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection made absolute: applicant released on bail on arrest on personal bond with two sureties, subject to cooperation, attendance, and no travel abroad without permission.

Mohd. Saleem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Home Lko — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66956

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1952 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Saleem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Pranshul Tripathi,Sachin Yadav,Umang Rai

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anjum Ara,Mohammad Irfan Siddiqui

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in FIR/ Case Crime No.899/2019, under Sections 307, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Thakurganj, District Lucknow.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶9

This Court while granting interim protection vide order dated 28.08.2024 has passed the following order:-

¶10

"Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to implead the complainant in the array of parties as respondent No.2 during the course of the day. The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime No.899/2019, under Sections 307, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Thakurganj, District Lucknow. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶11

In the prosecution case it is alleged that on 01.12.2019 at about 10:00 am while the brother of the informant Nadeem went to take the medicine at Unity School from a Hakeem who was not available then he went to take the fish and while returning on service lane at IIM road a person riding a bike first asked the address of Mutkeerpur and then with an intent to kill at 12:25 hours shot him. He was wearing a helmet. It is further alleged that matrimonial dispute between the injured and the sister in law of the informant is going on for the last three years. It is further alleged that father-in-law of the injured (applicant)

¶12

during mediation has threatened him to kill. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that except the allegation of threatening in the F.I.R., there is no other material to implicate the applicant. The injured in his statement has not taken the name of the applicant. Assailant has not been identified by the police. No test identification parade has been conducted yet. The charge-sheet has been filed. Matrimonial dispute between the daughter of the applicant and the injured is going on as the daughter of the applicant lodged F.I.R. No.0075 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 342 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act against her in laws. He submits that a perusal of the statement of the injured, the injury report as well as the entire prosecution case, the complicity of the applicant is absent he has been falsely implicated. He is aged about 64 years old having no criminal antecedent he has cooperated during investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer. Issue notice to respondent No. 2. List on 19.09.2024.

¶14

On due consideration to the material available on record, statement of injured and the fact that applicant has no criminal antecedent, age of the applicant and also considering the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant-Mohd. Saleem shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:(1) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial and he will not influence the witnesses. (2) The accused-applicant will remain present on each and every date fixed by the trial court. (3) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court."

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that charge-sheet in the matter has been filed. Applicant has co-operated in the investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the trial. He has no criminal antecedent.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application, however, could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no

¶17

criminal history. He further submits that charge-sheet in the matter has been filed.

¶18

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record so also the fact that charge-sheet in the matter has been filed, applicant has no criminal history, he has cooperated in the investigation and he shall cooperate in the trial, the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 28.08.2024 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed.

¶20

It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶21

Order Date :- 26.9.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶22

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

Mohd. Saleem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Saleem v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Phool Chandra Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Lalit Kumar Tiwari and Another vs NTPC Ltd. Thru. Cmd New Delhi and 2 Others

Waseem Alias Waseem Ahmad and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Krishna Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Irrigation Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Bhure Qureshi @ Shakeel vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shivam Jaiswal @ Shivam vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.