Dismissed¶12

Shahrukh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 May 2025BAIL/18654/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application rejected; repeat offender; violation of bail conditions; involvement in 13 similar cases; recovery of household articles, television, jewellery, mobile phones from applicant and co-accused; Case Crime No. 696 of 2024; Sections 305, 331(4), 317(2) B.N.S.; Police Station Pilkhua, District Hapur; applicant Shahrukh; custody since 28.01.2025; Allahabad High Court; Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:113040.

What did the court decide?

Despite a specific condition in the bail orders of previous cases that the applicant would not get involved in any criminal case, the applicant kept violating that condition and remained involved in similar cases. ¶10

Shahrukh vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113040

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18654 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Shahrukh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Kumar Srivastava,Arvind Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ankit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, and Ms Ruchi Mishra, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 696 of 2024, under Sections 305, 331(4), 317(2) of B.N.S., Police Station - Pilkhua, District - Hapur, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case on the basis of recovery which was not witnessed by any independent witness. It is further submitted that applicant was not named in the first information report. It is also submitted that applicant has explained criminal history. The applicant is a law abiding citizen and is languishing in jail since 28.01.2025. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned State Law Officer for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant has history of 13 cases and all are of similar nature.

¶10

From the bare perusal of the bail order of the previous cases, it is clear that there was specific condition that applicant will not involve in any criminal case. However, the applicant kept on violating the condition of bail and remain involved in similar cases. Even otherwise, from bare perusal of the recovery memo, it shows that large household articles, television, jewellery, mobile phones were recovered from the possession of the applicant and other co-accused persons.

¶11

Therefore, to prevent him to commit further offence and for ensuring his presence before the Trial Court, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this stage.

¶12

Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected.

¶13

Order Date :- 14.7.2025/PS

¶14

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

Shahrukh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahrukh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sanjay Shukla vs State of U.P.

Ramnath vs State of U.P.

Bandhu Harijan @ Bandhu Ram and Another vs State of U.P.

Prince vs State of U.P.

Imran Malik vs State of U.P.

Indu Devi vs State of U.P. and Another