SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Saddam Husain vs State Of U.P. on 6 November, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 45

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. – 46783 of 2019

Applicant :- Saddam Husain

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Babu Ram Yadav,Salil Krishna

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.

Heard Sri Babu Ram Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the documents on record as well as anticipatory bail rejection order.

The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 170 of 2019 under Sections 406 IPC, Police Station G.R.P. Mugal Sarai, District Chandauli.

The allegation in the F.I.R. is that the applicant was Manager of the train Pantry Car and on 17.5.2019 after selling all the items of the pantry of train no. 12367 Vikramshila Express, he left the station without informing any officer of his company with Rs. 2,33,897/- cash.

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are false and are civil in nature.

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my opinion, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Saddam Husain involved in the aforesaid case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) the applicant will join and participate in each and every aspect of “Investigation” and will lend full assistance to the Investigating Agency even with regard to “discovery of fact” if and when required so by the Investigating Agency or the concerned court;

(ii) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

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;

(iv) the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/Investigating Officer/first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

Order Date :- 6.11.2019

Kirti

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation