Allowed

Nayaz Bano Alias Niyaaz Bano and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2024ABAIL/4769/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on the ground of parity with a co-accused who had already been granted bail. The judgment sets standard conditions including personal bond, availability for interrogation, and prohibition of tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to Nayaz Bano and Shakil Ahmad till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each.

Nayaz Bano Alias Niyaaz Bano and Another vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:110514

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4769 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Nayaz Bano Alias Niyaaz Bano And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Ashraf Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Mohd. Ashraf, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material available on record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No. 429 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 of IPC, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Bareilly, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶9

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants has claimed parity with the co-accused Nasreen Begum, who has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.4898 of 2024 vide order dated 15.05.2024. Since the case of the applicants is at par with the co-accused person, who has already been granted anticipatory bail, the applicants are also entitled for the same on the ground of parity. The applicants have criminal history of one case which has been explained in the supplementary affidavit filed today in court.

¶10

The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned AGA. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, evidence on record, pending trial and in the light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of

¶12

Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 coupled with the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 , without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶13

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicants, Nayaz Bano Alias Niyaaz Bano and Shakil Ahmad, involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶15

i. that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶16

ii. that the applicants 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; iii. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶17

iv. that in case, the charge-sheet is submitted, the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶18

v. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶19

vi. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail of the applicants.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date:- 8.7.2024 Siddhant

¶23

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nayaz Bano Alias Niyaaz Bano and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nayaz Bano Alias Niyaaz Bano and Another v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. and Another

Jabbar vs State of Up and Another

Bharat Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Lalit and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Pankaj Tiwari vs State of Up and Another

Ram Kishor vs State of U.P. and Another