Allowed

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

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2022BAIL/53221/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application for abduction under Section 363 IPC, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed the applicant Mohd Haseen to bail. The court imposed strict conditions including a personal bond, sureties, and undertakings against adjournments, while explicitly stating the order reflects on bail disposal only and not on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties of equal amount, subject to strict conditions regarding attendance and undertaking against adjournments.

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

¶1

Court No. - 90

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53221 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd Haseen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rizwan Ahmad(Qureshi),Hina Shafiq

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shiv Shanker Prasad,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Rizwan Ahmad(Qureshi), learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Amit Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the State as well as perused the entire material available on record.

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant- Mohd Haseen a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Crime No. 0470 of 2022, under Section 363 I.P.C. Police Station-Katgarh, District-Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.

¶8

The present first information report has been lodged by the brother of the victim on 12th August, 2002 against the four named accused persons including the applicant alleging therein that on 12th August, 2022 co-accused Nafeesh @ Raju, his brothers, namely, Guddu, Haseen (applicant) and his father Mohd. Fafeez with common intention enticed away his daughter. When the informant asked the family members of Nafeesh about his sister, his brothers and father said that they have made his sister disappear and she will not be found.

¶9

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present first information report lodged by the informant brother of the victim is nothing but a bundle of lie and the same has been lodged only for exploiting the applicant by indulging his name in a fake, false and frivolous case. The entire prosecution story as unfolded in the first information report is absolutely a self-made story projected by the informant. The real fact is that the victim and the co-accused Nafeesh @ Raju was having love affairs with each other and she has also married the co-accused on her own sweet will. In the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she has stated that she loved the co-accused Nafeesh and she went along with him on her own free will. She also stayed with him. She has also stated that she married the co-accused Nafeesh on her own sweet will. Since she loved the co-accused Nafeesh, her brother i.e. informant, who did not like such relationship between the victim and co-accused Nafeesh, has lodged false report roping the co-accused and his family members. In the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has reiterated the same version as

¶10

stated in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In both the statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., the victim has nothing spoken against all named accused persons. It is further stated that the victim has refused to get herself medically examined. From the aforesaid statements, it is clear that the applicant and the victim are consenting party. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit except the present one. It is next contended that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail. The applicant is in jail since 29th August, 2022.

¶11

Per contra learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but they could not dispute the factual submissions as urged by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶12

Considering the nature of the offence, provision for initiation of cases and release the accused, material/evidence brought on record, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, as well as the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Versus State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

¶14

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

¶15

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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 him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(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

¶17

absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶18

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

¶19

(Shiv Shanker Prasad, J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 5.12.2022

¶21

Sushil/-

¶22

Digitally signed by SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.12.06 15:11:40 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Haseen 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

Nadeem Vs State of U.P.

Tehseem Vs State of U.P.

Haseen Vs State of U.P.

Shahbaz Vs State of U.P.

Jaiveer Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Shankar Vs State of U.P.