Raheesh Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7406

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 822 of 2025

Applicant :- Raheesh Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This is third bail application filed by the applicant in F.I.R. No. 13 of 2022, under Section 5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station Achalganj, District Unnao with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the second bail application was rejected vide order dated 06.05.2024, but till today, the trial has not been concluded. It is also submitted that only 2 witnesses have been examined out of total 10 witnesses. It is lastly submitted that in near future, there is no possibility of conclusion of trial and the applicant, who has no criminal antecedent, is in jail since 22.01.2022. In such circumstances, applicant is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the applicant will never misuse the liberty of bail and shall fully cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that .

¶10

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of F.I.R. as well as other relevant documents, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on

¶11

bail.

¶12

6. Application stands allowed.

¶13

Let applicant -Raheesh Ali be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 13 of 2022, on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶15

(ii) 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 office or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date 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.

¶17

(iv) 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 proceed against him under Section 229-A IPC.

¶18

(v) 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. may be issued and if 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 174-A IPC.

¶19

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b)

¶20

framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶22

However, trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the case expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

¶23

Superintendent of Police as well as Joint Director (Prosecution) concerned are directed to ensure the presence of the witnesses before the trial court.

¶24

Office is directed to communicate this order to the authorities concerned for necessary compliance, forthwith.

¶25

Order Date :- 5.2.2025 VKS

¶26

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

Raheesh Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raheesh Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Mr. Uvais and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Rubi Verma Thru. Her Husband Sri Subhash Patel vs State of U.P. Thru. Superintendent of Police Ambedkarnager and 3 Others

Guddu Gautam vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Smt. Sadhana and Another vs Dr. M.K. Shanmugh Sundaram Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and Others

Malti Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Satya Narain Singh vs Union of India Thru. Prin. Secy., Min. of C.P.W.D. and others