Allowed

Shadab Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Allahabad HC30 Aug 2024BAIL/9283/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application by Shadab Khan, noting inconsistencies in the victim's testimony between initial and subsequent statements. The court observed the applicant had no criminal record and no risk of fleeing, deeming it a fit case for bail despite the alleged offense.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding evidence tampering, witness intimidation, and attendance.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:59540

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9283 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shadab Khan

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko

¶6

Counsel for Applicant :- Chandan Srivastava,Lavkush Yadav,Rajneesh Kumar Singh,Yogesh Somvanshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶8

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

¶9

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that daughter of the informant aged about 18 years was not found in the room at 2'O clock in the night when the informant woke up. A suspicion was raised that Shahzad Khan and Salman Khan would enticed away the daughter of the informant.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim in her statement under Section 180 of BNSS has stated that she was in relationship with Shahzad for the last six months and she wanted to marry him; she of her own accord went away with him in a car on 24/25.07.2024 and she herself called the coaccused Shahzad. The prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution story in her statement under Section 180 BNSS, however, in her statement under Section 183 BNSS, she has made improvement and allegation of forcibly taking the victim in the Court has been levelled on the applicant and on the coaccused Nayab.

¶11

It has been further submitted that the victim was recovered on 26.07.2024. She remained with the accused persons for two days. She is major and at no point of time she has raised any

¶12

alarm. The applicant is languishing in jail since 30.07.2024 without having any criminal antecedents.

¶13

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

On due consideration to the improvement made by the victim while giving statement under Section 183 BNSS, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 30.07.2024 without having any criminal antecedents and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant, Shadab Khan, involved in Case Crime/FIR No. 335/2024, under Sections 87 and 3(5) of BNS, Police Station - Inayat Nagar, District - Ayodhya, 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he

¶22

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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

Order Date :- 30.8.2024 R.C.

¶26

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

Shadab Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shadab Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bajrangi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Pein. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Vitarani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Up Lko. and Another

Vijay Kaumr Mishra vs C.B.I. Thru. Superintendent of Police C.B.I. /EO-1 New Delhi

Ruchi Agahari and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Anshal Tiwari @ Suraj vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Shoaib vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others