Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2023ABAIL/12254/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Court rejected the plea despite allegations of false implication. The Court held that the gravity of the offences precluded the grant of bail and declined to decide facts at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application rejected; no ground found to grant bail.

Mohd. Imran Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12254 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Imran Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajat Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in Case Crime No.53 of 2012, under Sections 147 and 148 IPC, Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Sections 125 and 153A of Representation of People Act, Police Station Mantola, District Agra.

¶6

As per the FIR, the accused-applicant is a member of the crowd which got collected with Ex-MLA Chaudhary Waseer Qureshi. He is supporter of the said Ex-MLA. It is alleged that Chaudhary Waseer Qureshi along with 2000-2500 people on 6.2.20212 without having any permission from the competent authority, went on to block the road and raised inflammatory slogans. The atmosphere of the area got charged and the people got terrified and they closed their shops and went inside their houses/establishments. There was imposition of Section 144 Cr.P.C. in the area. However, no permission was taken from the competent authority and 2000-2500 people got collected and raised inflammatory slogans.

¶7

Accused-applicant initially got an interim order from this Court. However, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd and another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2018) 16 SCC 299, interim order got vacated. The accused-applicant filed an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial

¶8

court, which came to be rejected vide order dated 16.11.2022. The accused-applicant has now moved this Court for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant was not present when the incident took place. The police has filed false case against him. He further submits that the police did not know the name of the accused-applicant, but since he is resident of the nearby locality, his name has been taken.

¶10

These are the question of facts, which can be decided during the course of trial. Further, at the time of consideration of the anticipatory bail, the Court is required to see whether the case falls within the parameters of the Section 438 Cr.P.C. to grant anticipatory bail.

¶11

Considering the gravity of offence and the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to grant anticipatory bail to the accused-applicant.

¶12

Accordingly, anticipatory bail application is rejected.

¶13

Order Date :- 10.1.2023 Rao/-

¶14

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Imran 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

Constable Anand Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Veer Pal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Ram Das Alias Ramji Lal Vs State of U.P.

Sarvesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Bhudev Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vakil Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another