Shamsahad Muhammad @ Muhammad Shamasad and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2021ABAIL/13902/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application, the High Court audience considered the severity of allegations and the applicants' attributed role. The court exercised its powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and rejected the application, refusing to interfere with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

None; the anticipatory bail application is rejected, and the investigating officer is given full liberty to conduct the investigation.

Shamsahad Muhammad @ Muhammad Shamasad and Another Vs… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13902 of 2021 Applicant :- Shamsahad Muhammad @ Muhammad Shamasad And Another

¶3

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

(1) Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A and perused the record.

¶6

(2) The instant application is being moved by the applicants namely, Shamsahad Muhammad @ Muhammad Shamasad and Jaiharinddin invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. that they have every reason to believe that they may be arrested on the accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence in connection with Case Crime No.0077 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station-Bhogaon, District-Mainpuri.

¶7

(3) From the record, it is evident that the applicants have approached this Court after getting their anticipatory bail rejected from the court of sessions vide order dated 22.6.2021.

¶8

(4) Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P. , hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

¶9

(5) Taking into account the severity of allegations and the role attributed to the applicants, this Court feels that in order to have indepth probe into the matter, the Investigating Officer of the case should be given fullest liberty to choose its own course for the transparent investigation. Thus, giving a panoramic view of the matter the Court is not inclined to exercise its powers in favour of the applicants, and thus the present anticipatory bail application is hereby REJECTED.

¶10

Order Date :- 9.9.2021 M. Kumar

Shamsahad Muhammad @ Muhammad Shamasad and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamsahad Muhammad @ Muhammad Shamasad 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naeem Vs State of U.P.

Durga Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurabh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivam Pandey @ Golu Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Manoj Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Junaid Vs State of U.P. and Another