Allowed

Talib v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC23 Feb 2024BAIL/2131/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed bail to the applicant in a case involving the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, held an identically placed co-accused had already been released, and there was no apprehension of absconding, subjecting the applicant to standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding tampering with evidence and cooperation in trial.

Talib vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:16844

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2131 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Talib

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Srivastava,Sarojani Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter, including upto date case diary and charge-sheet in this case has been submitted.

¶8

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

¶9

This bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Talib for grant of bail in Case Crime No.0779 of 2023, under Sections 3/4/5/6/7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (SIT) re-organized Act, lodged at Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Ayodhya, during trial.

¶10

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant, while pressing the bail application, submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and, he has not committed any offence, as claimed by the prosecution. It is vehemently submitted that even if the case of the prosecution it taken on its face, sections 3/4/5/6/7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 may not be attracted against the applicant, as at the most he was a customer and none of the women apprehended from the place was minor and even if the case of the prosecution is believed, the alleged act of the applicant, being a customer, is punishable with imprisonment with upto 3 months.

¶11

It is next submitted that identically placed co-accused Ambar @ Ammar has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 16.02.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1724 of 2024 . The applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 18.12.2023 and he is not having any previous criminal history. Charge sheet in this case has already been filed and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty.

¶12

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant has committed an heinous offence and, therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

Perusal of record would reveal that owner of the premises in question has been shown as one Meena and the applicant has been shown as a customer. The

¶14

other women shown to be involved in the flesh-trade are not minor and in this background it is submitted that only section 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 would attract in this case where punishment upto three months imprisonment is provided as none of the victim was a child or minor. Identically placed co-accused Ambar @ Ammar has already been granted bail by this Court. The applicant is languishing in jail in this case since 18.12.2023 without any previous criminal antecedents. Charge sheet in this case has also been filed and the presence of the applicant may be secured before the trial court by placing adequate conditions.

¶15

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is thus allowed .

¶16

Let the accused/applicant- Talib involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶17

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

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶19

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶21

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

¶22

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶23

Order Date :- 23.2.2024 Gurpreet Singh

¶24

Digitally signed by :- GURPREET SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Talib v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Talib v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. 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

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and Another

Gopal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Raj Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Isarar @ Isarar Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rashid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Ram Murat Yadav Vs Directorate of Enforcement Thru. Assistant Director Govt. India