Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Mahatab Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

Home
Allahabad HC
2022
Mahatab Vs State of U.P.Mahatab v. State of U.P.

Allowed

Mahatab v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Oct 2022BAIL/28668/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the applicant in a case under the Arms Act, noting that co-accused had already been enlarged on bail by the same court.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount.

What the court decided

AI extract

A

Court No. - 70

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 28668 of 2022

Applicant :- Mahatab Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhir Kumar Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No. 150/2022, under Sections 3/5/25 Arms Act, Police Station- Charthawal, District - Muzaffar Nagar.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present crime. He further submits that there is no independent witness in the present case; nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant; no motive has been assigned to the applicant; no credible and cogent evidence is against the applicant. It is stated that after taking note of entire facts and circumstances of the case, co-accused, namely, Jamshaidi @ Sanjida @ Moti and Naushad, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 05.09.2022 and 20.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 25820/2022 and 28762/2022. Accordingly, the applicant is also entitled for bail. It is also submitted that there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, the applicant may flee from the course of law or may, otherwise, misuse the liberty of bail and the applicant is in jail since 21.05.2022 and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is very bleak.

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a trial pending case under the Arms Act as co-accused have already been released on bail.

Parties & counsel

AI extract

applicant
Mahatab

Coram

AI extract

Piyush Agrawal

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Allahabad HC
Decided on: 19 Oct 2022 · October
Registered: 1 Jul 2022
Case no.: BAIL/28668/2022

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Piyush Agrawal

Aurangzeb Vs State of U.P.
18 Oct 2022
Dheeraj Rai Vs State of U.P.
18 Oct 2022
Smt. Pooja and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others
18 Oct 2022
Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P.
19 Oct 2022
Smt. Tamanna and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Cite this judgement

Mahatab v. State of U.P., BAIL/28668/2022 (ALL), decided on 19 October 2022.

The Allahabad High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Bench / Coram

Piyush Agrawal

Parties & counsel

Outcome

Released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a trial pending case under the Arms Act as co-accused have already been released on bail.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted to an applicant accused of offences under Sections 3, 5, and 25 of the Arms Act. The Court found it to be a fit case for bail considering that co-accused had already been released on bail, despite the opposition by the State.

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail, but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the accused-applicant that co-accused have already been released on bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusing the record and also considering the nature of allegations, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in mind that co-accused have already been released on bail by this Court and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

Let applicant, namely, Mahatab, be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime Number on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that the applicant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. In case of absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against the applicant under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iii) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure the applicant's presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against the applicant, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If, in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against the applicant in accordance with law.

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

Order Date :- 19.10.2022 Amit Mishra

(Piyush Agrawal,J.)

Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2022.10.19 13:24:00 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

CNR

UPHC011128662022

Topic

Bail and Remand

Bench

Disposal

Allowed/Partly Allowed on merits

19 Oct 2022

Rani Kumari and Another Vs State of U.P and Others

19 Oct 2022