Akif Ali @ Akib Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38672

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6266 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Akif Ali @ Akib Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Singh,Shri Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

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

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.188 of 2025, under Sections 140(2), 308(5) of BNS, P.S. Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow.

¶9

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 12.05.2025 at about 06:00 pm some unknown persons came from two vehicles and brother of the complainant Irfan was beaten and kidnapped. Later on, the complainant received a phone call whereby Rs.2,00,000/- ransom was demanded.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is not named in the F.I.R. His name has surfaced in the confessional statement of the co-accused in police custody. Nothing has been recovered from him. The alleged ransom of Rs.2,00,000/- has been recovered from the co-accused. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 20.05.2025.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer however, does not dispute the fact that there is no recovery from the applicant and his name has surfaced in the confessional statement of the coaccused.

¶12

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 20.05.2025, applicant is not named in the F.I.R., there is no recovery from him and his name has surfaced in the confessional statement of the co-accused persons and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant- Akif Ali @ Akib be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

(iii) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶18

(iv) 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. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶19

(v) The applicant 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

¶20

proceed against him under Section 269 of BNS.

¶21

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 BNSS is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 BNS.

¶22

Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Akif Ali @ Akib v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akif Ali @ Akib v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

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

Prem Kumar Bajpai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Anand Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Masrur Ahmad in Fir Masroof Ahmad @ Masrur Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko

Vishal Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary Lko.

Kuldeep Singh @ Kallu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Mohd. Tauseef Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko.