Shahid @ Nate Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2083

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 272 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Shahid @ Nate Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Ana Fatma,Mohd. Salman Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

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

¶8

Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 818 of 2022, under Sections 3/5/8 U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been planted by the police in the instant case. He next added that there is no Forensic Science Lab Report with regard to the fact that meat which is said to be recovered is of cow progeny. He further added that there is no independent public eye witness of the said recovery and there is no previous criminal antecedent of the applicant, which has been mentioned in para 21 of the bail application. The applicant is law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 13.03.2024. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that identically situated co-accused, namely, Mohd. Anwar and Mohd. Murad have already been enlarged on bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12271 of 2022 vide order dated 21.10.2022 and in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11839 of 2022 vide order dated 03.11.2022. The applicant is seeking parity of the orders aforesaid.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid but could not dispute the fact that the identically situated co-accused has already been enlarged on bail.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after

¶13

perusal of record, it is evident that there is no independent public eye witness of the said recovery; there is no Forensic Science Lab Report so at to ascertain that what kind of meat is recovered from the possession of the applicant; the identical situated co-accused has already been enlarged on bail; further the applicant has no previous criminal antecedent which has been mentioned in para 21 of the bail application and he is languishing in jail since 13.03.2024.

¶14

Thus, 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 without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶15

Let the applicant- Shahid @ Nate 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

(2) 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;

¶18

(3) 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

¶19

(4) 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.

¶20

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

¶21

cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶22

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.

¶23

[Shree Prakash Singh,J.]

¶24

Order Date :- 10.1.2025 Mohd. Sharif/KR

¶25

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

Shahid @ Nate v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahid @ Nate 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Chandra Prakash Gautam @ Raj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Lalta Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Himanshu Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Mohd. Iliyas and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Madhu Bahadur Thapa and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. /Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and 3 Others