Allowed

Faheem Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC20 Jun 2024BAIL/6674/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application for offences under the Wild Life Protection Act and Indian Forest Act involving alleged false recovery of a motor-cycle and cash without independent witnesses. Court granted bail citing incarceration since April 2024 and absence of independent witness, imposing standard conditions including evidence-tampering prohibitions and attendance requirements.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Faheem Khan released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to six conditions including no tampering with evidence and regular attendance before trial court.

Faheem Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:44693

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6674 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Faheem Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Niyaj Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Range Case No.01-2024-25, under Sections 9/51(1c), 27/51 (1c), 39/51(1c), 48A/51(1c), 49B/51 (1c) of Wild Life Protection Act and Section 26 of Indian Forest Act, Range-Katarniya Ghat, District Bahraich.

¶8

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has no criminal history, offence is triable by magistrate. False recovery of one motor-cycle as well as Rs.270/- has been shown from the applicant to which there is no public witness. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 10.04.2024.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer.

¶10

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 10.04.2024, there is no independent witness to the alleged recovery, period of incarceration gone into by the applicant without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶11

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶12

Let the applicant Faheem Khan be released on bail in aforesaid

¶13

case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶14

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶15

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(iv) 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

(v) 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

(vi) 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

Order Date :- 1.7.2024 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶21

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

Faheem Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faheem Khan 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

Gufran Ahmad vs Stateof U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Ram Prakash Singh @ Prakash Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Pradeep Bot vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rajesh Mishra @ Rajesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ankur Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Danish @ Shahanshah vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.