Allowed

Abdul Rahman v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC3 May 2024BAIL/4789/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench granted bail to the applicant Abdul Rahman in a case under the U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, noting no recovery of incriminating articles and no evidence of likelihood of fleeing or tampering.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond with two reliable sureties each in like amount, subject to conditions of preventing adjournments, ensuring presence in court, and not tampering with evidenc

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34435

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4789 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Abdul Rahman Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Gyanendra Pathak Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant application has been moved seeking bail in respect of Case Crime No.38 of 2024, under Sections 3/5/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Mallhipur, District Shrawasti during trial.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that as per the averments contained in the FIR it is alleged that the police received a tip regarding certain activities done by the applicant along with other co-accused involved in slaughtering the prohibited animals. It is in this context that the police party apprehended the co-accused Chore @ Munsharrif. The present applicant was also identified and by taking advantage of the darkness the present applicant succeeded in running away.

¶9

Further submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant was not involved in any activity of slaughtering of prohibited animals nor any such recovery has been made from the present applicant. In the aforesaid circumstances the applicant who is in jail since 03.03.2024 is entitled to be released on bail. There is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶10

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application and has pointed out that the applicant is also involved in Case crime no.39 of 2024 wherein the present applicant had along with other coaccused allegedly fired at the police party. In the aforesaid context, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant, at this stage, submitted that insofar as the other case crime number is concerned, the applicant has already been enlarged on bail and it has further been stated that it is not the present applicant who had either shot at the police party or injured rather it was the other coaccused namely Chore @ Munsharrif, moreover, the applicant is enlarged on bail in the case crime no.39 of 2024 by means of the order dated 09.04.2024, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-2 of the bail application.

¶12

It is further submitted that one of the co-accused Ojhe @ Ahmad Raza has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 01.05.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no.4733 of 2024.

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record and noticing the fact insofar as the present case arising out of Case Crime no.38 of 2024 is concerned, no recovery has been made from the applicant nor any incriminating article has been found from his possession and as far as the other case crime no.39 of 2024 is concerned, it is not disputed that the applicant has been enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court and the applicant is in jail since 03.03.2024 and also 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.

¶14

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶15

Let the applicant -Abdul Rahman involved in the abovementioned case crime 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. At the time of executing required sureties, the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶16

(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.

¶17

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on

¶18

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) 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.

¶20

(iv) 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.

¶21

(v) 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.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 3.5.2024 Harshita

¶24

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

Abdul Rahman v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rahman v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Ram Pratap @ Badakku Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shailendra Pratap Pankaj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Sahil Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Radhey Lohar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Aslam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Prakash Rathore Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and 3 Others