Dismissed

Abdul Quadir v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2023ABAIL/9664/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court rejected an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held that no case was made out for exercising discretionary bail powers in view of the serious nature of the accusations, the applicant's criminal history, and the specific circumstances related to firearm possession. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. rejected; no relief granted.

Abdul Quadir Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:179432

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9664 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Abdul Quadir Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ainul Haq Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 210 of 2023, under Section s 21/25, 5/27 of Arms Act, 1959 and Section 188 of IPC, P.S. Sarai Akil, District Kaushambi during pendency of trial.

¶8

As per prosecution case, co accused Abdul Kavi, son of Abdul Ghani, resident of village Bhakanda, police station Sarayan Ankil, district Kaushambi, who has been active member of Atiq Ahmed Gang was also involved in the Raju Pal murder case and against whom an FIR vide Case Crime No. 34/2005 sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120B, 506 IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and in RC No. 02/S/2016 of CBI, Case No. 20432/2022 Section 147, 148, 149, 307,302,120B, IPC and Section 27 Arms Act he has been declared wanted and a reward of one lakh is also declared. It is further alleged that said co accused Abdul Kavi, after his involvement in the criminal incidents mentioned above, surrendered his allotted arm license but could not deposit the arm before the authority concerned as a result of which a case under Arms Act was also filed against him and others and his license was also cancelled and in compliance of the cancellation of license, the ammunition was not deposited before the concerned authority. It is also alleged that earlier, the police had served a notice to Abdul Kavi, during which he told that he used to keep his gun with his brothers including the applicants and these are the people who could have informed about his rifle. These people have his rifle.

¶9

It is submitted that in this case applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the police with ulterior motive. There is no credible evidence to connect the applicant with the crime in question. The applicant is under apprehension of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the trial. He has not committed any crime.

¶10

Learned Additional Government Advocate, has opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant has a licensed rifle of the co-accused Abdul Kabi whose license has been canceled by the District Magistrate, Kaushambi and despite that the same is not being deposited before the concerned authority, and the crime

¶11

committed by the applicant is of serious nature, therefore, no case for bail is made out. It is also pointed out by learned AGA that the applicant has criminal history of three cases.

¶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 prosecution case, gravity and nature of accusation, the evidence on record, 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 rejected.

¶14

Order Date :- 18.9.2023 RavindraKSingh

¶15

Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Abdul Quadir v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Quadir v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Pushpa Devi Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sagar Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P.

Jouli Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Adanan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Madan @ Rajendra Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.