Salmaan Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17080

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13351 of 2024

Applicant :- Salmaan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Kumar Srivastava,Manoj Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 744 of 2024, under sections 309(6), 317(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S.,,Police Station-Khairi Ghat, DistrictBahraich.

¶8

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He added that the applicant is not named in the first information report and his name came into light only on the confessional statement of the co-accused person. He next added that there is no substantial evidence against the applicant so as to connect him in the instant matter and the chargesheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses. He submits that there is a case criminal history of the applicant, which has been explained in the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 15-10-2024. Further submitted that the applicant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that there are serious allegations against the applicant and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶10

Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the applicant is languishing in jail since 15-10-2024; criminal

¶11

history of the applicant has been explained; chargesheet has been filed and as such, there is no possibility that the applicant would tamper the evidences or would threaten the witnesses coupled with the fact that he has undertaken that if he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of the same and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶12

Considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Salmaan , involved in the aforementioned crime 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:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

(ii) 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. He 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;

¶16

(iii) The applicant 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 313 Cr.P.C.; and

¶17

(iv) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶19

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶20

Order Date :- 25.3.2025 Satish

¶21

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Salmaan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salmaan 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

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. Lko

Arif Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home Department Civil Secretariat, Lucknow

Mohd. Iliyash Alias Mohd. Iliyas Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Ministry Home Affairs Lko

Pavan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Salmaan vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Yadav Alias Bachha Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another