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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20567

Court No. - 17

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13089 of 2024

Applicant :- Zalim Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Raman Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.026 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station - Pisawan, District - Sitapur, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person, has been falsely implicated in the case and he is in jail since 7.4.2022. He further submits that first bail application of the applicant was rejected on 17.4.2023 with a direction that trial court will conclude the trial expeditiously without giving unnecessary adjournment to ether of the parties but till today, examination in chief of informant/P.W.1 has been completed. He also submits that in near future, there is no possibility of conclusion of trial and applicant is ready to cooperate in the trial. He next submitted that coaccused persons, namely, Ramesh & Lalta Prasad have already been released on bail by co-ordinate benches of this Court vide order dated 13.4.2022 & 19.4.2022, respectively, therefore, applicant is also entitled for bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for grant of bail, but he does not dispute this fact that first bail application of the applicant was rejected with the direction to the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶10

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A., material

¶11

available on record, contents of F.I.R., other relevant documents, rejection order passed by this Court, as well as facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties but till today, only examination in chief of P.W.1 has been concluded, therefore, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Let applicant - Zalim - be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall not commit or participate in any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶14

(ii) 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.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶16

(iv) 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 IPC.

¶17

(v) 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., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against

¶18

him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶19

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 11.4.2025 GauraV/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Zalim v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zalim v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Luvkush Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Peer Mohammad Vs Kumar Harsh Distt. Magistrate Sultanpur and 2 Others

Avinash Yadav Vs Sri. Dr. Mahendra Deo, Director Secondary Education, Prayagraj U.P. and Another

Reshma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Km. Shalu Shukla Vs Pratibha Goel Vice Chancellor Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Awadh University Ayodhya

Ram Nath Vs Rajesh Chaudhry, the Chief Accounts Officer, U.P. Jal Nigam, (Urban) Lko.