Allowed

Mohd Shakeel @ Hafiz Gatua v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Aug 2023BAIL/58297/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court granted bail to Mohd Shakeel accused of robbery and theft under IPC sections 392 and 411. Court held lack of FIR naming plus absence of incriminating recovery justified bail despite history.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two heavy sureties each with conditions to appear, not interfere with witnesses, and remain in district.

Mohd Shakeel @ Hafiz Gatua Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:155764

¶2

Court No. - 74

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 58297 of 2022

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd Shakeel @ Hafiz Gatua Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Zafar Abbas Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party and perused the record.

¶8

The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 142 of 2022 under Sections 392 & 411 I.P.C., Police StationThakurdwara, District- Moradabad, during the pendency of the trial.

¶9

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant was not named in the first information report. The name of the applicant was disclosed by the co-accused, Zakir @ Bahra in Police custody, who was arrested on 05.05.2022 in Case Crime No. 221 of 2022. The said statement insofar as, it implicates the applicant is unreliable. No incriminating article has been recovered from the applicant. The recovered mobile phone belongs to the applicant. There is no evidence to connect the applicant with the offence. The criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para no. 10 of the bail application.The applicant is in jail since 18.08.2022. In case he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that the applicant has criminal antecedents.

¶11

After hearing the rival contentions, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the applicant was not named in the first information report. The name of the applicant was disclosed by the co-accused, Zakir @ Bahra in Police custody. No recovery of any incriminating article has been made from the applicant.

¶12

In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it

¶13

is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. In the opinion of this Court if the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

¶14

In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446 , the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:-

¶15

"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked."

¶16

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶17

Further, the applicant has remained confined for almost one year, there is no hope of early conclusion of trial and without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶18

Let the applicant- Mohd Shakeel @ Hafiz Gatua , involved in the aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties (in view of criminal history) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to conditions that he:

¶19

(i) shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court;

¶20

(ii) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶21

(iii) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses; and,

¶22

(iv) shall not leave district without the leave of the trial court.

¶23

(v) shall appear on 15th of every month at the Police Station

¶24

concerned.

¶25

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

¶26

Order Date :- 3.8.2023

¶27

Sachin Mishra

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd Shakeel @ Hafiz Gatua v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Shakeel @ Hafiz Gatua 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunnu @ Abhimanyu Singh Vs State of U.P.

Munabbar Vs State of U.P.

Sahdev Vs State of U.P.

Gausulbara Vs State of U.P.

Sonu Vs State of U.P.

Chotey Khan Vs State of U.P.