Shakib Alias Sakib vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:48688

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9548 of 2025

Applicant :- Shakib Alias Sakib Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Bharat Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Imran Khan, learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 372 of 2024, under Sections 140(1), 103(1), 238, 61(2), 3(5) BNS, Police Station Kotwali, District Budaun, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown person under section 140(1) BNS but during investigation case was converted under section 103 BNS.

¶9

He further submitted that during investigation applicant has been made accused in the present matter through the statement of one co-accused Arish Chaudhary and except the statement of the co-accused and confessional statement of the applicant, there is no other cogent evidence against the applicant on record.

¶10

He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 13.12.2024.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that apart from the statement of the co-accused and confessional statement of the applicant, there is also evidence against the applicant that he had number of conversations with coaccused persons before, on and after the incident but he could not dispute the fact that applicant is not having any criminal history.

¶12

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶13

It is a case of circumstantial evidence and during investigation

¶14

applicant has been made accused in the present matter through the statement of the co-accused.

¶15

Record also suggests that except the statement of the co-accused and confessional statement of the applicant and the fact that applicant had conversations with other accused persons before and after the incident, there is no other evidence against the applicant on record.

¶16

Further, applicant is having no criminal history and in the present matter, he is in jail since December, 2024.

¶17

Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant- Shakib Alias Sakib , be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted.

¶21

(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

¶24

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶25

Order Date :- 5.4.2025/Ankita

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shakib Alias Sakib v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakib Alias Sakib 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

Similar cases

Anil Yadav vs State of U.P.

Dwarika Prasad Jha vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Shukla vs State of U.P.

Hausala Devi vs State of U.P.

Yashpal vs State of U.P.

Rajan vs State of U.P.