Allowed

Mohd. Mustafa @ Chand Babu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2024BAIL/7304/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Bail Application where the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted interim bail to the applicant charged under Cow Slaughter and Cruelty to Animals Acts, subject to sureties and conditions to ensure trial presence and prevent tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties; conditions imposed regarding non-tampering of witnesses, absence during trial, and attendance for specific stages of trial.

Mohd. Mustafa @ Chand Babu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:51907

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7304 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Mustafa @ Chand Babu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Ganga Prasad Mishra,Abhinav Mishra

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶8

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶9

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

¶10

Instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 22 of 2024, under section 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act and section 11 Cruelty to Animals Act Police StationKotwali Bikapur District- Ayodhya/Faizabad.

¶11

The contention of learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and he has been planted by the police. He submits that the applicant was not arrested on spot and the two other accused persons, who have been arrested on spot have been enlarged on bail and the bail orders are appended as annexure nos. 3 and 4 alongwith the application. He submits that in fact the applicant was arrested in case crime no. 23 of 2024 under section 307 of IPC and thereafter, the police has connected him in the instant matter though, he was never involved. He also submits that the applicant has a case criminal history which he has explained and except apart there is no criminal history of the applicant. He further has shown the falsity in the story of prosecutions and submits that there is no cogent piece of evidence so as to connect him in the instant matter. He further added that the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.1.2024 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate with the trial proceedings.

¶12

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contention aforesaid, but he could not dispute the fact that the identically co-accused persons namely, Rajnish

¶13

Saket and Mohd. Jameel have already been enlarged on bail by the coordinate bench of this Court. Further there is a case criminal history which has been explained and the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.1.2024.

¶14

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant was not arrested on the spot and similarly situated two other co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail; the applicant has a case criminal history which has been explained in the paragraph 16 of the bail application; there is no cogent piece of evidence so as to connect him in the instant matter; the applicant is languishing in jail since 28.1.2024 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate with the trial proceedings.

¶15

Let the applicant- Mohd. Mustafa @ Chand Babu , 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

(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;

¶18

(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

¶19

(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 Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶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

¶21

cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 29.7.2024 Mayank

¶24

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

Mohd. Mustafa @ Chand Babu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Mustafa @ Chand Babu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Vikas Balmiki Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Dharmendra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Muntzir Mehdi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Minority Welfare and Muslim Waqfs Deptt. Lucknow and Others

Ritesh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Lalit Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another