Allowed

Mohd. Nasir and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2018CRLA/5282/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal against rejection of bail under SC/ST Act and IPC charges was allowed. The high court set aside the impugned bail rejection order, ruling that appellants made out a case for bail due to lack of criminal history and pending marriage.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting bail set aside; appellants released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each.

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

¶1

Court No. - 41

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5282 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Mohd. Nasir And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shiv Kumar Singh Rajawat Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶5

Order in memo of Crl.Appeal

¶6

The appeal is admitted.

¶7

Crl.Misc.Bail Appln. No. Nil of 2018

¶8

Vide office report dated 22.10.2018 notice could not be served upon opposite party no.2 due to insufficient address.

¶9

Sri Mayank Mishra, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate, has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party no.2 today, the same is taken on record.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶11

This criminal appeal has been filed against order dated 06.09.2018 passed by Special Judge, (SC/ST), Amroha, in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.1654 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No.494 of 2018, under sections 406, 420, 392, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station Gajraula, District Amroha, whereby bail application of the appellants was rejected.

¶12

According to the prosecution case, F.I.R. was lodged on 03.08.2018 against four accused namely Nafees Ahmad, Mohd.Nasir, Mohd.Asif and Anees @ Guddu alleging that on 27.05.2018, they assaulted the complainant Mahendra Singh and looted a chain for the dispute of not returning the money.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case and it is directed by this Court not to arrest the two persons namely Nafees Ahmad and Anish alias Guddu vide order dated 13.9.2018 in Case Crime No.494 of 2018 till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Marriage of appellant No.1 Mohd.Nasir is fixed on 01.11.2018. There is no independent witness. They are languishing in jail since 27.08.2018 (about two months) having no criminal history and if they are enlarged on bail, they will not abscond or tamper with the evidence.

¶14

Learned AGA and Dinesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer for bail but admitted that the appellant has no criminal history.

¶15

Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that the amount taken by the appellants may be ordered to be given to them.

¶16

For the foregoing discussions, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 06.09.2018 rejecting the bail of the appellants is hereby set aside.

¶17

Let the applicants, Mohd.Nasir and Anish alias Guddu, involved in Case Crime No.494 of 2018, under sections 406, 420, 392, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station Gajraula, District Amroha, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶18

(i). The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

(ii). The applicants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

(iii). The applicants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶21

(iv) The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶22

(v) The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 23.10.2018 SKD

Mohd. Nasir and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Nasir and Another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Monaf Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gajju Singh Gajraj Vs State of U.P.

Praveen Vs State of U.P.

Ramji Vs State of U.P.

Pramod Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Devendra Kumar Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another