Allahabad High Court
Rashid vs State Of U.P. on 20 October, 2016
Bench: Vipin Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 2
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35691 of 2016
Applicant :- Rashid
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nazrul Islam Jafri
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the applicant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No. 349 of 2016, under Section 3/5-Ka-/8 of the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 (Gha) Prevention of Animal of Cruelty Act, Police Station ? Pakbada, District ? Moradabad.
The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. Even if the persecution story is believed to be true, the only role assigned to the applicant is that of transportation of the cattle and nothing else. It is clearly mentioned in paragraph 12 to the application that applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 07.09.2016.
Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that similarly placed co-accused ? Yusuf has been granted by this Court vide order dated 20.10.2016 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35689 of 2016 - (Yusuf Vs. State of U.P) and the applicant whose role is identical of that co-accused ? Yusuf.
Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and the fact that the similarly placed co-accused ? Yusuf has been granted bail by this Court, the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.
It is next contended that in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 07.09.2016.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima-facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the applicant ? Rashid involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-
1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
2. The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.
3. The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.
5. The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the learned counsel for the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
Order Date :- 20.10.2016
Vinod.
