Shamshad v. State of U.P.
Case brief
What is this about?
The high court rejected a second bail application where the applicant absconded for four years after being on bail. The court found the explanation that he was unaware of the charge-sheet to be vague and insufficient, dismissing the plea for fresh bail.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:159738
Court No. - 70
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 30261 of 2023
Applicant :- Shamshad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
- Heard Sri Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.
- The instant bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 429 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Jhinjhana, District Shamli during pendency of the trial.
- Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 25.04.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 58486 of 2022 and first bail application of the applicant was dismissed on the ground that applicant failed to disclose the fact that when applicnat had gone to Punjab and now in the instant second bail application he in paragraph-14 has stated that he went to Punjab on 30.03.2018 and he was not having any knowledge of charge-sheet filed against him, therefore, he could not appear before the trial court, therefore, instant second bail application filed by the applicant be allowed.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant's failure to disclose the charge-sheet for four yearswhile absconding constitutes a new ground for granting bailin this second application.
Whether the applicant's vague explanation of going to Punjab for livelihoodsufficient to overcome the prejudice of absconding for four years.
Parties & counsel
- applicant
Shamshad
- respondent
State of U.P.
Coram
Sameer Jain
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · August
- Registered
- Case no.
- BAIL/30261/2023
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court