Mustkeem v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 May 2025BAIL/5197/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted; CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 5197 of 2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:70318; Allahabad High Court; decided 2.5.2025 by Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J.; applicant Mustkeem vs State of U.P.; Case Crime No. 170 of 2024; Sections 364, 506, 323 IPC; abduction/kidnapping of informant's daughter; parity with co-accused Yunus; custody since 20.04.2024; P.S. Roravar, District Aligarh; bail allowed without expressing opinion on merits; conditions imposed; counsel R.K Singh Gaharwar; G.A. for State.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to applicant Mustkeem in Case Crime No. 170 of 2024, Sections 364, 506, 323 I.P.C., Police Station Roravar, District Aligarh, on personal bond and two local sureties, subject to the enumerated conditions; default entitles cancellation of bail. ¶¶10

Mustkeem Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Mustkeem, in custody since 20.04.2024 in Case Crime No. 170 of 2024 (Sections 364, 506, 323 I.P.C.), is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶¶9

Court's answer

The bail application is allowed: considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations and the gravity of offence, and without expressing any opinion on merits, the Court found it a fit case for bail.

¶¶9

Ratio / Principle

Applicant Mustkeem is to be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 170 of 2024 under Sections 364, 506, 323 I.P.C., Police Station Roravar, District Aligarh.

¶¶10

Key takeaways

Bail is on execution of a personal bond and two local sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions (no tampering with evidence, no threatening or harassing witnesses, appearance on dates fixed, commission of no similar offence, no inducement or dissuasion of witnesses); on default of any condition the court concerned may cancel the bail in accordance with law.ratio¶¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J.) allowed the bail application of Mustkeem arising out of Case Crime No. 170 of 2024 under Sections 364, 506, 323 I.P.C., Police Station Roravar, District Aligarh, where the FIR alleged abduction of the informant's daughter. Counsel relied on parity with co-accused Yunus, already enlarged on bail on the same set of evidence; the applicant has one prior case in which he is on bail and was in jail since 20.04.2024; the learned A.G.A. opposed. Without expressing any opinion on merits, the Court held it a fit case for bail, directing release on personal bond and two local sureties with usual conditions, breach permitting cancellation.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70318

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5197 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Mustkeem Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- R.K Singh Gaharwar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant with the allegation that he had abducted the daughter of the informant. Learned counsel further submits that one more accused namely, Yunus, has already been enlarged on the same set of evidence. Therefore, applicant may also be enlarged on bail. There is one case in the history of the applicant, in which he is on bail. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been mentioned. It has also been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him. He next submits that the applicant is in jail since 20.04.2024.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶9

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence and without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed.

¶10

Let the applicant- Mustkeem, be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 170 of 2024, under Sections 364, 506, 323 I.P.C., Police

¶11

Station- Roravar, District- Aligarh, on executing a personal bond and furnishing two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶13

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶14

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶15

iv) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission.

¶16

v) 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 such person from disclosing facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶18

Order Date :- 2.5.2025 Mustaqeem.

¶19

Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mustkeem v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mustkeem 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