Dismissed

Faeem and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC25 Nov 2022ABAIL/4788/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment rejects an anticipatory bail application filed by Faeem and three others. Despite claims of innocence and alleged medical report fabrication, the High Court refused bail due to the grievous nature of injuries and lack of credible evidence. The court directed consideration of a regular bail application if filed within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

No. 2 and 4 dismissed as withdrawn; Application for applicants No. 1 and 3 rejected; Direction to apply for regular bail within 3 weeks.

Faeem and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4788 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Faeem And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohit Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case No. 108 of 2021, arising out of case crime no. 480 of 2020, under Sections 323, 324, 504, 308 IPC, P.S. Hayatnagar, District Sambhal, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.

¶7

At the outset learned counsel for the applicants stated that applicant no.2 Sultan and applicant no.4 Mohd. Sajid have already been granted regular bail and thus, their anticipatory bail application may be dismissed as withdrawn.

¶8

Accordingly, the application on behalf of no.2 Sultan and applicant no.4 Mohd. Sajid is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶9

Regarding applicant no.1 Faeem and applicant no.3 Akram, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Learned counsel has referred the injury report and statement of injured and submitted that allegations made against the applicants, are thoroughly false. As per statement of Dr. Jagveer Singh, the injured Mohd. Azam has not sustained any fracture. It was stated that said injured Mohd

¶10

Azam was admitted in hospital on 08.09.2020 and he was discharged on 10.09.2020. The alleged second discharge slip of injured Mohd. Azam, wherein he was shown admitted in hospital on 10.09.2020 and date of discharge was shown 30.09.2020, is false and fabricated document. It was stated that against concerned Dr. J.P.S. Yadav, three first information reports have already been lodged and he often indulges in preparation of forged medical reports. Further, regarding same incident, a non-cognizable report was also lodged from the side of applicants. Referring to facts of the matter, it was alleged that there is no credible evidence against the applicants. The criminal history of one case, shown against the applicants, has duly been explained. The applicants undertake to co-operate during investigation and trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and argued that in the alleged incident the injured Mohd. Azam has sustained as many as eight injuries including several injuries at head and it was shown that he remain admitted for 20 days in hospital. As per supplementary medical report, the head injury of injured Mohd. Azam was shown grievous in nature. It was also submitted that there is criminal history of one case against the applicants.

¶12

Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, the applicants are not entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence the present application for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected .

¶13

However, it is directed that in case applicants appear before the Court below within three weeks from today and apply for bail, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with settled law.

¶14

Order Date :- 25.11.2022 A. Tripathi

¶15

Digitally signed by AKHILESH TRIPATHI Date: 2022.11.25 17:30:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Faeem and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faeem and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Nandram Vs State of U.P.

Sagir Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ahmad Hasan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Kumar Puwar @ Sanjay Puwar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naveen Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sushila Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another