Allowed

Mohd. Shamim @ Laddan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2024BAIL/310/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application for the applicant accused under Section 302 IPC. Granting bail on grounds of parity with four co-accused released earlier for similar roles, despite no merit opinion formed. Conditions include personal bonds and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail with personal bonds and two sureties of Rs.20,000/- each, subject to conditions of attendance, non-commission of offenses, and non-interference with witnesses.

Mohd. Shamim @ Laddan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:17252

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 310 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Shamim @ Laddan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Dileep Kumar Tiwari,Md.Khurshed Ahmad,Nadeem Murtaza Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Wali Nawaz Khan, Advocate holding brief of Shri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the respondent informant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that admittedly four accused have been enlarged on bail. It is further argued that the applicant has been assigned the similar role as of the co accused who have been enlarged on bail. The applicant has no pending criminal case prior to lodging the present case and in the present case, the applicant is in custody since 8.8.2023, hence the applicant may be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.

¶8

Learned counsel for the respondent State as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail but could not deny the ground of parity.

¶9

Considering the fact that four co accused who were assigned the similar role, have been granted bail coupled with the fact that the applicant has no pending criminal history prior to the lodging of the present case except specified in the case mentioned hereinabove, and is languishing in jail since 8.8.2023, and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

¶10

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant Mohd. Shamim @ Laddan be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.295 of

¶12

2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶13

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶14

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶15

(c) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

Before parting with the order, it is directed that the trial court shall expedite the trial.

¶17

Order Date :- 26.2.2024

¶18

Shukla

¶19

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

Mohd. Shamim @ Laddan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Shamim @ Laddan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Mohd. Akeel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4OTHERS

Chhotu Alias Umesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow

Shishupal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Harshendra Singh @ Raja Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Shyam Bihari @ Shyam Kishor Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Brijesh Kumar Prajapati Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Govt. Lko.