Mohd. Arshad v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Mar 2024ABAIL/440/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court directed incorporation of the FIR informant as an additional opposite party with service and notice steps, listed the case for 05.04.2024, and extended the earlier interim anticipatory bail order with conditions until the next date.

What did the court decide?

Continuation of interim anticipatory bail till next listing on bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties, with standard conditions.

Mohd. Arshad vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 440 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Arshad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shakeel Ahmad Jamal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

Personal affidavits of S.H.O. of Police Station Haidergarh, Barabanki and Circle Officer of Police, Haidergarh, Barabanki, filed by learned A.G.A., are taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

It appears that during the pendency of the instant anticipatory bail application an F.I.R. has been lodged and the same has been lodged on the basis of complaint filed by Shri Pappu Siddiqui S/o Mohammad Raza, R/o Mohalla Kothi Ward Nagar Panchayat Haidergarh, Barabanki. The informant of the F.I.R. has not been arrayed as opposite party in this petition.

¶8

Thus, learned counsel for the applicant is directed to incorporate informant as opposite party no.5 to the petition.

¶9

Necessary amendment be made during the course of the day.

¶10

After amendment, steps shall be taken by learned counsel for the applicant to serve the opposite party no.5 within 24 hours i.e. till tomorrow i.e. 22.03.2024 and on the steps being taken, the notice shall be issued by the office to the newly incorporated opposite party no.5 returnable till the next date of listing.

¶11

7. List this case on 05.04.2024 in top 10 cases of the cause list.

¶12

It is provided that interim order, which was granted initially on 01.03.2024 and extended vide order dated 04.03.2024 shall remain in operation till the next date of listing in terms that in the event of the arrest of the applicant in the instant case, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of the same amount subject to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer

¶13

of the Police Station concerned/Investigating Officer/Trial Court with the following conditions:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation or for discovery of any fact by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

(2) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶16

(3) The applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Court.

¶17

It is clarified that in case of any failure of the conditions mentioned herein-above, the investigating officer may approach this Court for vacation of the interim stay granted in favour of the applicant.

¶18

Order Date :- 21.3.2024 Praveen

¶19

Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Arshad v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Arshad v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

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

Anjesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko.

Nanga @ Mithlesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko.

Mohak Shastri Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kamlesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko

Srishti Jain vs Sandeep Jain

Imtiyaz Hussain @ Bhaiya Ji vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.