Allowed

Mohammad Hasin v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2023BAIL/46264/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous bail application, the Allahabad High Court allowed bail to Mohammad Hasin involved in a cheque-related offence. The court noted the application was made on merits, the applicant had no criminal history, and the disputed amount was deposited. The State raised no objection. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed subject to personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions; previously deposited amount to remain in fixed deposit.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:234817

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 46264 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mohammad Hasin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Tulsi Singh Yadav,Abhishek Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶7

Heard Sri Abhishek Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in pursuance to the order dated 9.11.2023 the applicant has deposited a sum of Rs. 18,000/- with the court below. In this respect an order of the court below dated 4.12.2023 is annexed along with the supplementary affidavit as Annexure No. 1. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that since the disputed amount has been deposited by the applicant before the court below applicant may be enlarged on bail. The applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 5.10.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State has no objection as the disputed amount has already been deposited by the applicant.

¶10

Learned AGA for the State has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.

¶11

It is not the case of the State that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court.

¶12

The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch

¶13

stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51 . Learned AGA for the State has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶14

No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶16

Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶18

Let the applicant- Mohammad Hasin involved in Case Crime No. 607 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffarnagar be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶19

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶20

ii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶21

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶22

iv. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶23

v. 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.

¶24

vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶25

vii. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

¶26

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶27

It is also provided that the amount deposited by the applicant in pursuance to the order dated 9.11.2023 before the court below shall remain in a fixed deposit account in a nationalized bank bearing interest and shall be subject to the final decision of the trial court proceedings.

¶28

Order Date :- 12.12.2023 VMA

¶29

Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohammad Hasin v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Hasin 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Kumar Saroj @ Bajrangi Vs State of U.P.

Shaukin Vs State of U.P.

Gopal Shankar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Vinay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Bindoo Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others