Allowed

Shadab Ali v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2024BAIL/3707/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court, while granting bail to an applicant accused of abduction under Section 366 IPC, noted a prima facie discrepancy in the victim's recorded statement (Section 164 Cr.P.C.) and found no apprehension of tampering or escape, allowing release on personal bond with sureties and specific appearance conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in such amount as satisfies the court concerned.

Shadab Ali vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:27249

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3707 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shadab Ali Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Tripathi,Bhupendra Singh Bisht

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent. Sri Vivek Kumar Pandey, learned counsel has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant and the same is taken on record.

¶8

By means of the instant bail application, the applicant seeks bail in respect of Case Crime No. 108 of 2024 under Section 366 I.P.C. relating to P.S. Kamlapur, District Sitapur.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that as per the version of the First Information Report, it was alleged that on 01.03.2024 as the complainant and his family were busy in a marriage ceremony, he inquired about the whereabouts of his daughter but the same yielded no fruitful result. Upon searching, the complainant came to know that the present applicant and one another person namely Adheesh Soni had taken away his daughter.

¶10

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations levelled in the first information report are false, baseless and ambiguous as no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant as the applicant has no criminal history and he has been languishing in Jail since 04.03.2024.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, however, could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶12

This Court finds prima facie that the allegations in the FIR are not supported by the victim in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which is on record as Annexure No. 4. The victim denied an coercion at the behest of the applicant for any offer to marry or for any sexual or illicit intercourse, hence, the commission of offence prima facie becomes doubtful.

¶13

Considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as

¶14

considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶15

Let the applicant Shadab Ali involved in Case Crime No. 108 of 2024 under Section 366 I.P.C. relating to P.S. Kamlapur, District Sitapur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶16

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶17

(i) 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. 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.

¶18

(ii) The applicant 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.

¶19

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

¶20

(iv) 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. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 3.4.2024/Asheesh

¶23

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

Shadab Ali v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shadab Ali v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

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

Harishankar @ Dahpel and Another Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rachit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kali Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home

Mohd. Irfan @ Kaju Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Vijay Pal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt Lko.

Nurooddin and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another