Rashid vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:10849

Court No. - 68

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1844 of 2025

Applicant :- Rashid Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Naushad,Noor Ahmed Counsel for Opposite Party :- Nushra Siddiqui,G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Mohd. Naushad, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Puneet Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record. Ms. Nushra Siddiqui, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the first informant.

¶7

This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Rashid, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 163 of 2013, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Police StationJhinjhana, District- Shamli.

¶8

It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the FIR giving rise to the instant case crime number was lodged against 9 named persons including the applicant and 5 to 6 unknown persons. Injuries were alleged to have been sustained by 5 persons namely Sattar s/o Haneef, Mehboob s/o Rasheed, Abid s/o Haneaf, Kamran Raja s/o Haseem, Naseem s/o Latif. The CHC, Jhinjhana where the injured were examined found no injuries upon Naseem, Kamran Raja. Sattar received one injury on his right thigh, Mahboob suffered one injury on his left forearm and Abid received two contusion caused by hard and blunt object. No injury was shown on any vital part of the body nor the doctor opined that the injuries suffered by the injured were dangerous to life. Chargesheet against the applicant along with other co-accused persons was submitted on 09.05.2013. Subsequently, the injured persons Naseem, Mahboob, Abid and the eyewitness Rizwan s/o Basheer, Furkhan s/o Subrattu and Islam s/o Zinda filed affidavits denying the incident and presence of the accused persons. The judicial Magistrate Shamli dropped the proceedings against the accused persons. The co-accused Nazir, Shazad, Khalid were granted bail vide order dated 14.05.2013 by the Sessions Court. The applicant remained under a bonafide belief that proceedings against him had

¶9

been dropped on account of the compromise and affidavits of the injured witnesses. No proceedings of Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. has been initiated against the applicant till date. The applicant has an absolutely clean past and there are no criminal antecedents to his credit. The bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 06.01.2025 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO) Shamli and he is confined in jail since 11.12.2024. Hence bail has been prayed for.

¶10

The bail application has been opposed by Sri Puneet Kumar Singh, learned AGA as also M/s. Nushra Siddiqui, learned counsel for the informant that the applicant has been absconding since the year 2013 and on account of his absence, the trial was being hampered. If released on bail he shall misuse the liberty. Hence the applicant be not released on bail.

¶11

Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶13

Let the accused-applicant, Rashid , involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶14

The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶15

The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶16

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶17

The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶18

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail.

¶19

Order Date :- 21.1.2025

¶20

Anjali

¶21

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

Rashid v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashid 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

Similar cases

Awadhesh Narayan Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Badal Singh vs Sri Gautam Singh, Divisional Director Social Forestry Division Lalitpur

Sushila Devi and Another vs Shri K. Vijayendra, Pandian, the Present Commissioners and Director Industries, U.P. ANUBHAG-3-A U.

Shyamlal vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Prema Devi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sandeep and 26 Others vs State of U.P. and 6 Others