Salman vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:13016

Court No. - 68

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 922 of 2025

Applicant :- Salman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kapil Kumar,Sandhya Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arimardan Yadav, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accusedapplicant, Salman, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 360/2024, under Sections 109, 318(4), 336(3), 340(2) of BNS, Section 4/25 of Arms Act and Section 3/5AB/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, Police Station - Khurja Dehat, District - Bulandshahar.

¶8

In the prosecution case, it is alleged that on the basis of information received, the police party apprehended the applicant along with other co-accused persons. It is further alleged that the accused persons fired at the police and in defence, they have also fired. The applicant is not named in the FIR.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated. There is no injury received by any of the police personnel. There is no independent witness of the incident or of the recovery. The applicant is languishing in jail since 11.09.2024 without having any criminal antecedents. Co-accused, Shakeel @ Hakla, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 37963 of 2024. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶10

It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away after being released from jail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

On due consideration to the fact that it is a case of no injury to the police; there is no independent witness of the recovery, coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 11.09.2024 without having any criminal history and without expressing any opinion on the 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 Salman involved in the aforesaid case 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 which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶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 proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(vi) 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, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Anjali

¶22

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

Salman v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salman 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

Soni vs State of Up

Toni Singh @ Rajendra Singh vs State of U.P.

Gulab Kali vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Praveen Kumar vs State of U.P.

Satyam Pandey vs State of U.P.

Zubair vs State of U.P.