Allowed

Mohd. Alkamar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2024BAIL/9123/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 309 and 317 of the BNS, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) allowed the applicant's request. Finding no independent public eye witness for recovery and no cogent evidence connecting the applicant to the offense, the court granted bail contingent on personal bond, sureties, and adherence to specific court appearance conditions, while reserving judgment on t

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding evidence tampering, court appearances, and failure to appear after proclamation.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69795

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9123 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Alkamar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Bhardwaj,Satish Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant as well as counter affidavit filed by the State are taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA 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 Case Crime No. 502 of 2024, under Sections 309(4), 317(2) of BNS, Police Station PGI, District Lucknow.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been planted by the police in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He further submits that there is no independent public eye witness of the recovery and he has also shown other falsity in the prosecution case. He next submits that there is no cogent piece of evidence against the applicant so as to connect in the instant matter. There is a case criminal history of the applicant which has been explained and the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.07.2024. He further submits that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate in the trial proceedings. Thus, submission is that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is involved in committing the offence and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that there is no independent public eye witness of the recovery; prima facie the police has failed to connect the present applicant with the offence. This Court has also noticed that the applicant has a case criminal history which has been explained and he is languishing in jail since 24.07.2024, coupled with the fact that the applicant has undertaken that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted 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

¶13

Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶14

Let the applicant- Mohd. Alkamar 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

(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;

¶17

(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

¶18

(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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

Order Date :- 16.10.2024 kkv/

¶22

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

Mohd. Alkamar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Alkamar 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

Mayank Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Stamp and Registration Deptt. and 6 Others

Ubaid Ulla @ Mohd. Ubaid vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shankar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dr. Jayash Nath Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Higher Education Lko. and Another

Sabhapati Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Satyam Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko