Allowed

Shoheb Akhtar @ Shera v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2024BAIL/9701/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a criminal bail application for the applicant involved in a case alleging violence and property damage at a hospital. Considering the simple nature of injuries and general allegations against multiple unnamed accused, the court grants bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with conditions regarding no tampering, no adjournments, and presence in court.

Shoheb Akhtar @ Shera vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:64013

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9701 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shoheb Akhtar @ Shera Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Farhan Alam Osmany Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Aashish Misra

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, complainant's counsel, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶7

2. It is alleged in the prosecution case that on 18.07.2024 at about 05:15 hours, Abdul Salim along with his daughter went to the hospital of the complainant and insisted on showing the doctor. In the process, he started misbehaving with the reception staff and had quarrel escalated to the extent that he started abusing one of the staff Mamta and tried to catch her and also tried to break into the room of the doctor and also came with two dozen people out of which one was armed with pistol and others were having rod, lathi danda etc. They have destroyed the CCTV camera and fortuner and duster car.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there are four injured in this case. The allegation in the first information report is that 10 named and two dozen unnamed persons have committed crime. Specific role of causing injury has not been assigned to the applicant by injured Mamta or any other injured. Only general allegation has been levelled against the present applicant. The applicant has explained criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 21.8.2024.

¶9

The co-accused Mohammad Asraf has been enlarged on bail by the Sessions Judge, Faizabad vide order, Annexure-12 to the

¶10

bail application. The applicant seeks parity with the said bail order.

¶11

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

¶12

4. Learned A.G.A. and complainant's counsel opposed the prayer for bail. The complainant's counsel submits that specific role of damaging vehicle has been assigned by the injured Shashank Verma on the applicant.

¶13

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the applicant has explained criminal history, simple nature of injuries received by four injured and the fact that there are 10 names and two dozen unnamed accused persons against whom, general allegation has been levelled, the co-accused Mohammad Ashraf has been enlarged on bail by learned Sessions Judge, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the period for which the applicant is in jail and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶14

6. Let the applicant Shoheb Akhtar alias Shera, involved in Case Crime No.384 of 2024 under Sections 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 352, 351(3), 324(2), 109(1), 309(2), 3(5) B.N.S. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kotwali Ayodhya, 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

7. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶22

Order Date :- 17.9.2024 kkb/

¶23

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

Shoheb Akhtar @ Shera v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shoheb Akhtar @ Shera v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

Rajesh @ Rajesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home , Lucknow and Annother

Sunil Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow

Ramu Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Amit Khandel Wal Vs Cbi/Scb Lucknow

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