Mohd.Naiem vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Dayal Khare, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent.

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in case crime no. 395 of 2009 under Section 363, 366, 368, 376 IPC, P.S. Kotwali District Kanpur Nagar with a prayer that he may be granted bail.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the daughter of first informant, namely, Prarthna, was in love with Shahnawaz alias Shanu and had married with him and since the first informant was against the said marriage, he lodged first information report against Shanu and his family members. It is also contended that the applicant is brotherinlaw of Shanu and against him there is no allegation of commission of offence under the charged section. It is further contended that the daughter of first informant has married with Shanu out of her freewill, therefore, the applicant has been falsely implicated.? It is also contended that the applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 26.10.2009 and in case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Learned A.G.A. has contended that the applicant? does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions of parties and also perusing the material on record, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, let the applicant Mohd. Naiem involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to following conditions that :

the applicant shall not tamper the prosecution evidence;

the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; and

the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the bail, granted to the applicant, shall stand automatically be cancelled.