Allowed

Mukeem Ahemad v. State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC17 May 2014BA1/397/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Writ Jurisdiction, the High Court of Uttarakhand allowed a bail application. The Court noted the applicant had no prior criminal history and that parity existed with a co-accused who had been granted bail. Conditions for execution of a personal bond and sureties were laid down, along with a warning regarding threats to the complainant.

What did the court decide?

The bail application of the applicant is allowed. The applicant shall be released on executing a personal bond and furnishing two local reliable sureties.

Mukeem Ahemad Vs State Of Uttarakhand — Bail and Remand | Uttarakhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Original Jurisdiction

¶3

Dated: Nainital the 17^th Day of May, 2014 1^st Bail Application No. 397 of 2014.

¶4

Order on the Bail Application:

¶5

CRIMINAL SIDE

¶6

Mukeem Ahmad .…… Accused/Applicant (in jail)

¶7

versus

¶8

State of Uttarakhand ...………. Opposite party

¶9

FIR No. 526 of 2013 Under Sections 364, 365, 302 and 201 of IPC Police Station – Kashipur District – Udham Singh Nagar

¶10

Mr. Sandeep Tandon and Mr. Suresh Kumar Mishra, Advocates present for the applicant. Mr. S.S.Adhikari, Brief Holder, present for the State/respondent.

¶11

U.C.Dhyani, J.

¶12

Applicant, who is in jail in connection with FIR No. 526 of 2013, relating to offences punishable under Sections 364, 365, 302 and 201of IPC, Police Station – Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, has sought his release on bail.

¶13

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the material on record and considered the grounds taken up in the bail application.

¶15

Co-accused Nazim, with almost identical role, was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 30.04.2014. Applicant has no previous criminal history and he is in jail since 27.10.2013.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances, a case of bail is made out in favour of the applicant on the basis of parity.

¶17

Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the applicant Mukeem Ahmad be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two local reliable sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur.

¶18

It is the contention of learned counsel for the State that the family members of the applicant are threatening the complainant from giving the evidence in the Court of law.

¶19

In this context, it is made clear that if the applicant or any of his family members threatens the complainant or his family members, it will be open to the complainant to move an application for cancellation of bail of the applicant before the Sessions Judge concerned.

¶20

(U.C.Dhyani J.) 17.05.2014

¶21

Kaushal

¶22

Mukeem Ahemad v. State Of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukeem Ahemad v. State Of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Adesh Kumar Gangwar Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Vishnu Agarwal Vs Ankur Saxena

Shahrukh Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Dharmesh Vs State Of Uttrakhand

Naresh Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Manoj Vs State Of Uttarakhand