Dismissed

Muneer Ahmad @ Muneer Mahato v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2023ABAIL/6797/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application pending in a criminal assault case. Held that no sufficient case for exercise of discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was made out due to the gravity of allegations.

What the court decided

AI extract

Muneer Ahmad @ Muneer Mahato Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:148931

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6797 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Muneer Ahmad @ Muneer Mahato Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Saket Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A., Kamta Prasad

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Saket Jaiswal, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Kamta Prasad, learned counsel for the informant.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.167 of 2023, under Sections 307, 323, 324, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Maudaha, District Hamirpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant in fact no such incident has taken place as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. As per version of the impugned FIR, the applicant alongwith three other accused persons armed with knife have assaulted the first informant, as a result of which, he sustained serious injuries. He further submits that only general allegation has been levelled against the applicant and other coaccused persons. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. There was no motive to the applicant to commit such offence. As per medical report, the doctor has opined the duration of injuries about one day. Prima facie no alleged offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is having previous criminal history of two cases which has been mentioned in paragraph 26 of the affidavit. He further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate with the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and

¶10

would co-operate with the trial.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant and has prayed for rejection of the same by submitting that the applicant alongwith his associates armed with knife have physically assaulted the informant as a result of which the injured received grievous injuries. As per injury report as well as x-ray report, fracture of nasal bone was found. The allegations are very serious and keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, applicant is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶12

In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as mentioned above, taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicant as per prosecution case, gravity and nature of accusation, this Court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is made out in favour of applicant.

¶13

Accordingly, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed .

¶14

However considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the applicant appears before the court below and seeks grant of regular bail, his application shall be heard and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶15

Order Date :- 26.7.2023

¶16

Ajeet

¶17

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Muneer Ahmad @ Muneer Mahato v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Muneer Ahmad @ Muneer Mahato v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babloo Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anurag Kumar @ Golu Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Santosh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Naveen Singh Vs State of U P and Others

Vijendra @ Vire @ Bijendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another