Allowed

Sahjad @ Aughad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2024BAIL/7263/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under the wildlife protection statute for a man in custody since May 2024 with six prior cases. Court found him not arrested on spot per counsel's statement and granted bail on personal bond with two Indian sureties, imposing standard conditions without commenting on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two heavy Indian sureties with conditions; court may cancel bail on breach.

Sahjad @ Aughad vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:70690

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7263 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Sahjad @ Aughad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Nripendra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed today by counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Range Case No. 01 of 2024-2025 under sections 9/51(1) 31/51(1), 39/51(1), 44/51(1), 49B/51(1), 52/51(1) Vanyajeev Sarankhasn Act P.S.- Abdullaganj, District - Baharaich.

¶9

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the applicant was not present on spot and he was arrested at some place other than as shown in the first information report and has been shown to be involved in committing offence. He further submits that the police has failed to collect any cogent piece of evidence against him and the matter would not lead to the punishment. He has also shown the other falsity in the story of prosecution and submits that the applicant has six cases criminal history which has been explained and he is languishing in jail since 4.5.2024 and he undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. He further submits that applicant is ready to furnish the Indian Sureties before the court concerned if, the bail is granted to him.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is the main accused and he was arrested on spot and there are six cases criminal history against the applicant therefore, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶11

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 4.5.2024; the applicant has six cases criminal history which has been explained; This Court has also notice the fact that as per the statement of counsel for the applicant that he was not arrested on spot and the police has shown him to be arrested on spot; further the applicant is ready to furnish the Indian sureties coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Sahjad @ Aughad involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶14

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

¶15

(2) 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. He 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;

¶16

(3) 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.; and

¶17

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under

¶18

Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(5) The applicant as per his undertaking shall furnish two heavy Indian sureties before the court concerned.

¶20

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶21

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶22

Order Date :- 21.10.2024 Mayank

¶23

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

Sahjad @ Aughad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahjad @ Aughad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief 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

Anand Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Puja Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Aryan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Aman Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Shiva Kant Dwivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 5 Others

Raju Rai vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.