Dismissed

Rais Ahmad @ Kana v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Sept 2021ABAIL/14685/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge considered an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in an FELON stealing FIR arising from a cheque dishonour case. The applicant argued identity with co-accused who secured bail, but the Court dismissed the application noting the applicant's ownership of the transport company and the filed charge-sheet indicated direct involvement.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rais Ahmad @ Kana Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 14685 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rais Ahmad @ Kana Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 564 of 2014, under Sections - 406, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Seohara, District - Bijnor.

¶7

Urge made on behalf of the applicant is that the applicant has not committed any offence. Similarly circumstanced other two co-accused of this case, namely, Mohammad Yusuf and Younus @ Mohd. Faijan have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, vide order dated 25.08.2021 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 9524 of 2021. The case of the present applicant is identical to that of co-accused, who have already been admitted to bail. In case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of anticipatory bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the accused applicant and has submitted that the transport company in question is owned by none other than the applicant himself and not by the other two co-accused, who have already been granted interim relief. He further submitted that in this case after investigation, the things have been fructified and charge-sheet has been filed. That becomes another concrete proof of involvement of the applicant in the incidenṭ in question. It cannot be said that the accusation levelled against the applicant are false.

¶9

Considering the submissions and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, no doubt it is an admitted fact from the the perusal of the F.I.R. that applicant was involved in the offence in the question. Therefore, the arguments advanced here are argument to be advanced at the stage of regular bail and cannot form the basis of anticipatory bail.

¶10

The applicant is free to agitate his claim at the stage of regular bail before the appropriate court.

¶11

In view of above, this anticipatory bail application is disposed of.

¶12

Nothing has been observed on the merit of the case.

¶13

Order Date :- 9.9.2021 S Rawat

Rais Ahmad @ Kana v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rais Ahmad @ Kana v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishal Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kapil Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brijesh Pandey Vs State of Up

Anurag Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Banshidhar Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Singh @ Jeetu Thakur Vs State of U.P.and Another