Saleem and Another vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79871

Court No. - 68

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 11599 of 2025

Applicant :- Saleem And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed in the Court today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Shri Ashish Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of applicants - Saleem and Munshi with a prayer to release then on bail in Case Crime No. 231 of 2002, under Section 2/3 Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, registered at Police Station- Bhawanpur, District- Meerut during pendency of the trial.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. In gang-chart annexed as Annexure No. 1, three criminal cases have been shown and in all the cases, the applicant is on bail.

¶10

It is further submitted that the applicants are not a member or leader or organizer of a gang and they have not abetted or assisted in the activities of a gang as enumerated in clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act. Criminal history of the applicants, except the aforesaid case, has been explained in para 2 of the supplementary affidavit. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicants either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant no. 1 and applicant no. 2, who are languishing in jail since 02.02.2025 and 13.02.2025, respectively, undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶11

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicants, but has not pointed out any other case against the applicants except the cases shown by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶12

Upon considering the totality of facts, nature and the evidence reflected from record and also taking into consideration the provision of Section 19(4) of the Act and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed .

¶13

Let applicants, Saleem and Munshi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions-

¶14

(i) The applicants 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.

¶15

(ii) The applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶16

(iii) The applicants 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 351 B.N.S.S.

¶17

(iv) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶18

(v) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶20

It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶21

Order Date :- 15.5.2025/Anjali

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Saleem and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saleem and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mahesh Yadav vs State of U.P.

Zumme Khan vs State of U.P.

Irshad vs State of U.P.

Kundan Kumar vs State of U.P.

Mohit Singh vs State of U.P.

Harinand @ Haripal Saroj vs State of U.P.