Dismissed

Mohammad Arif v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2024/56/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous bail cancellation application, the court dismissed the plea seeking cancellation of bail granted in 2021. The applicant argued a new FIR and witness threats, but admitted no prior complaint was made to the trial court regarding such threats. The court deemed the application misconceived and unsubstantiated.

What did the court decide?

The bail cancellation application was dismissed as misconceived.

Mohammad Arif Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:64423

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 56 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohammad Arif Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajat Pratap Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

The instant bail cancellation application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to cancel the bail of respondent no.2 granted by this Court vide order dated 13.05.2021 in Bail Application No. 4681 of 2021.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this application for cancellation of bail is filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. on the ground that after getting release in the present case, private respondent lodged F.I.R. No. 595 of 2023 under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Hardoi and after detailed investigation, final report has been submitted by Investigation Officer.

¶9

It is further submitted that as witnesses are also being threatened by the private respondent, the bail order dated 13.05.2021 may be cancelled.

¶10

Sri Rajat Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that no complaint is ever made by the applicant to the trial Court regarding threat given to the witnesses. He further submits that the F.I.R. is lodged by the private respondent and after investigation, final report has been submitted by the Investigating Officer, hence, there is no ground for cancellation of the bail.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the bail order dated 13.05.2021 passed in Bail Application No. 4681 of 2021, it is evident that there is no case of the applicant that any direction given in the bail order is being violated by the private respondent.

¶12

It is admitted by learned counsel for the applicant that no any complaint about the threat given to the witnesses was ever made to the trial Court.

¶13

Therefore, the bail cancellation application is misconceived and accordingly stands dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 18.9.2024 Arpan

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohammad Arif v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Arif v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pradeep Raj Jain @ Rishi Jain and Others vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Abhilash Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ved Prakash Trivedi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Urban Development Lko and 3 Others

Dr. Sanjay Kumar Vs Parth Sharthi Sen Sharma, Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare, Lko.

Balak Ram Maurya and Others Vs Shri Praveen Tiwari, Distt. Basic Education Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri

Tahir Khan Vs Smt. Neha Sharma, Distt. Magistrate / Collector, Gonda