Allowed

Haseen v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2018BAIL/24943/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a bail application filed by Haseen in a criminal case involving cheating and drug offences. The applicant argued he had no concern with the alleged business and prior co-accused were already on bail. The court granted bail without expressing a view on merits.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with specified conditions.

Haseen Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 24943 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Haseen Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- M J Akhtar,Sri V.M. Zaidi Senior Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State today, is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A and perused the record.

¶7

The present Bail Application is arising out of one another Case Crime No.108 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 274, 275, 276 IPC, P.S.Amroha Nagar, District Amroha.

¶8

In that case the applicant has been released on bail vide order dated 12.04.2018 by another Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.39499 of 2017 (Haseen Vs. State).

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that allegation against the applicant is that he was carrying on business of expired medicines after changing the covers and levels of expired medicines and food supplements. It has further been submitted that the applicant has no concern with the alleged business. Co-accused Mohd. Nasir Faraz carried on business of Kabadi and wasted material and alleged godown belongs to coaccused Mohd. Nasir Faraz and Shahzaad, who have been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide orders dated 10.7.2017 and 1.9.2017 respectively. It has further been submitted that the applicant has no concern with the alleged offence and no offence is made out against the applicant. There is no complaint from public against the applicant for selling adulterated medicines. There is no criminal history of the applicant and is in jail since 17.3.2017.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicant Haseen involved in Case Crime No. 109 of 2017, under Sections 17, 18(A)(1), 27, 28A, 28B, 18A of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, P.S.Amroha Nagar, District Amroha

¶13

be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

The applicant will not tamper with the evidences.

¶15

The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate with the trial.

¶16

The applicant will appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless personal appearance is exempted by the court concerned.

¶17

In case of breach of any conditions mentioned above, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.

¶18

Order Date :- 23.8.2018 SFH

Haseen v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haseen v. State of U.P.

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

Azmatullah Vs State of U.P.

Anil @ Pappu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Aslam Vs State of U.P.

Dharma Vs State of U.P.

Mahendra Kumar Vajpayee Vs Union of India and Another

Ravi Vs State of U.P.