Allowed

Muqeem Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2023ABAIL/1086/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application, the single judge allowed an application despite the applicant's criminal history but clarified he is not a convicted person. Bail was granted with specific conditions including the bond amount, observance of conditions during trial, and consequences for breach. The order was based on the judgment of Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount on provisions enumerated in paragraphs 12 to 18.

Muqeem Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1086 of 2023

¶3

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

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Muqeem Ahmad (in person) and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.36 of 1998, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 435, 504, 338, 336, 341 IPC & 7 CLA Act at Police Station- Phoolpur, District Azamgarh with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith the coaccused persons are stated to have indulged in indiscriminate firing at the police on 17.02.1998 at about 6:00 pm alongwith his supporters.

¶8

The applicant who appeared in person has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The matter is a police party firing no injury case as none of the police personnel are stated to have sustained injuries in the said case. The case was transferred to the Special Court of MP/MLA and the applicant had no knowledge whatsoever of the process issued against him. The applicant is a well known figure and there is no likelihood of him absconding. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The applicant has a criminal history of two cases which stands explained in para 65 of the affidavit accompanying the bail application. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail. The applicant is not a previous convict.

¶9

The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. on the ground that the applicant has criminal history of two cases. However, he could not dispute the fact that the applicant is not a previous convict.

¶10

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶11

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Muqeem Ahmad be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶13

that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶14

that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶15

that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶16

that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶17

that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶18

that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶19

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial or deciding the regular bail application.

¶20

Order Date :- 2.2.2023

¶21

Kumar Manish.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Muqeem Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muqeem Ahmad 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

Gyanendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Khem Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Juvenile X Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jay Prakash and Anr. Vs Central Bureau of Investigation Ghaziabad

Veer Singh Vs C.B.I.

Gaurav Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others