Allowed

Saiyad Mohammad Naimuddin @ Naim v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2024BAIL/10672/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in a 1999 case under multiple IPC sections including cheating, forgery and abduction. Court noted the applicant's long-delayed prosecution, absence of criminal history, and custody since September 2024, and granted bail with conditions without expressing any view on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties to satisfaction of the court concerned, with conditions regarding conduct and appearance at trial.

Saiyad Mohammad Naimuddin @ Naim Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:82884

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 10672 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Saiyad Mohammad Naimuddin @ Naim Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Nafees,Pawan Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.557 of 1999, under Sections 120-B, 363, 366, 420, 452, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Balrampur.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that matter pertains to the year 1999 and the applicant had no knowledge that some criminal case is running against him and he came to know about the same when the N.B.W. was issued and that was served upon him. He further added that the applicant was not named in the F.I.R. that is why the fact with respect to the criminal case could not be intimated to him. He further submits that there is no previous criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 18 of the bail application and the applicant is languishing in jail since 9.9.2024 and in case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that the applicant is involved in committing the aforesaid offence, as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that the matter pertains to the year 1999; there is no previous criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in para 18 of the bail application; the applicant is languishing in jail since 9.9.2024 and he has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail if granted and would co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant Saiyad Mohammad Naimuddin @ Naim involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

(2) 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. He 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;

¶16

(3) The applicant 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.; and

¶17

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

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶20

Order Date :- 10.12.2024 Ram Murti

¶21

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

Saiyad Mohammad Naimuddin @ Naim v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saiyad Mohammad Naimuddin @ Naim v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

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

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

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

Vijay Tiwari @ Laddu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Radhey Shyam vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 4 Others

Sachin Jaisawal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Arvind Maurya and 30 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another