Mohd. Salman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1942

Court No. - 31

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2267 of 2024 Applicant :- Mohd. Salman Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Jay Kumar Soni,Nevedita Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised. This case has been heard through Video Conferencing.

¶7

Heard Sri Jay Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Gyanendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 652 of 2021, under Sections 3/5A/8 of Prevention of U.P. Cow Slaughter Act, Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Section 307 IPC, Police Station - Kotwali Nagar, District - Barabanki, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has claimed parity with the co-accused Ramdeen Yadav Alias Charchil, who has already been granted anticipatory bail by another Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 1062 of 2022 vide order dated 8.7.2022. Since the case of the applicant is at par with the co-accused who has already been granted anticipatory bail, the applicant is also entitled for the same on the ground of parity. Learned counsel has also stated that the applicant has criminal history of one case which has been explained in the supplementary affidavit.

¶10

The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned AGA. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him.

¶11

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648 , the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused by itself

¶12

cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶13

In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground of criminal antecedent.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, evidence on record, pending trial and in the light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 coupled with the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 , without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case. The bail application is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶15

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Mohd. Salman, involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶16

i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶17

ii. that 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; iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶18

iv. that in case, the charge-sheet is submitted, the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶19

v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution

¶20

witness;

¶21

vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶23

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶24

Order Date:- 10.1.2025 Siddhant

¶25

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Salman v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Salman v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Manjeet Singh vs State of U.P.

Ritesh Pratap Singh vs State of U.P.

Dhruv Singh Rajawat vs State of U.P. and Another

Dheeraj Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Paswan vs State of U.P.

Rahul Arora vs State of U.P. and Another