Allowed

Aslam and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2024ABAIL/5940/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to four applicants in a case involving attempted dacoity and mischief. The order relied on equal treatment of co-accused and pandemic conditions, imposing standard bail conditions including personal surrender and passport custody.

What did the court decide?

The applicants were enlarged on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each, subject to specific conditions regarding travel, passports, tampering, and court attendance.

Aslam and 3 Others vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:152115

¶2

Court No. - 48

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5940 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Aslam And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahender Pal Singh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Aslam, Mohammad Asgar, Hasib @ Mohammad Aasif and Anvar Ajad, with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 158 of 2019, registered under Sections 395, 397, 427, 435 I.P.C. at Police Station- Bhoganipur, District- Kanpur Dehat, during pendency of trial.

¶8

Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that co-accused persons, namely, Mubin, Istkar, Intezar, Tafsir and Anwar, have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 7.5.2024 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 3514 of 2024. The case of the applicants stand on identical footing, hence the applicants are also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. The applicants have definite apprehension that they may be arrested by the police any time.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but does not dispute the claim of parity.

¶11

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case

¶12

and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants and also the second surge in the cases of novel coronavirus and possibility of further surge of the pandemic, they are directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

The applicants shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶15

The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶16

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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶17

The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶18

In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶19

The applicants 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. If in the opinion of the trial court, default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and

¶20

proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶21

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶22

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶23

Order Date :- 18.9.2024 Rohit

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aslam and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aslam and 3 Others 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abubakar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Vishnu Gupta @ Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin.Secy. Home

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

Sheela Lodhi vs State of U.P.

Rajkumar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Raju Singh vs State of Up and Another