Dismissed

Mohammad Sarafat v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2018BAILC/2447/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge rejected a cancellation of bail application. The court held that allegations of threats made by the accused during bail relate to facts adjudicable only by the trial court during an interim bail cancellation hearing. The applicant was directed to approach the court below.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected; applicant directed to file an application for bail cancellation before the trial court.

Mohammad Sarafat Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 2447 of 2018 Applicant :- Mohammad Sarafat Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant/complainant, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶4

This bail cancellation application has been moved by the applicant/complainant to cancel the bail order dated 4.5.2018 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16812 of 2018 in pursuance of Case Crime No. No. 17 of 2018 under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302, 201 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mundali, District Meerut whereby Haneef accused/opposite party no. 2 was granted bail.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that during bail, opposite party No.2 Haneef had threatened and abused the applicant/complainant and pressurized him to withdraw the case.

¶6

From the perusal of record, it transpires that accused/opposite party no. 2 Haneef was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 4.5.2018 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16812 of 2018 in Case Crime No. No. 17 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302, 201 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mundali, District Meerut, on the ground that he was father-in-law of deceased and he had no concern with deceased or her husband. Main role was assigned to coaccused Shahzad (husband of deceased). Hence the bail of Haneef was granted by this Court.

¶7

Ground of cancellation of bail is related to facts which cannot be adjudicated by this Court and it can be decided by the trial court where the case is pending for trial.

¶8

Accordingly, the present bail cancellation application is rejected .

¶9

However, it is made clear that if accused/opposite party no. 2 misused the conditions imposed by this Court at the time of granting bail of accused/opposite party no. 2 i.e. "in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail", court concerned has power to cancel the bail of accused/opposite party no. 2.

¶10

If the complainant/applicant moves an application for concellation of bail of opposite party no. 2, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.

¶11

All the issues raised by learned counsel for the applicant/complainant before this Court can be very well raised before the court below at the time to hearing of bail cancellation application.

¶12

It is expected from the trial Court to decide the same on merit in accordance with law without being influenced the order passed by this Court.

¶13

Certify this judgment to the lower court immediately.

¶14

Order Date :- 7.12.2018//A. Singh

Mohammad Sarafat v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Sarafat v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhote Lal Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Babloo @ Haneef Vs State of U.P.

Shiva Vs State of U.P.

Chhotey Lal Vs State of U.P.

Saddam Vs State of U.P.

Shahida Khatoon Vs State of U.P. and Another