Allowed

Mo Hasin v. State of Up

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2024ABAIL/10325/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to Mo Hasin, an accused in a cheating and forgery case. The court allowed the application based on parity with a co-accused who had already been granted bail, citing precedents that the pendency of multiple cases is not a ground for bail refusal, without adjudicating the trial merits.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application is allowed. In case of arrest, applicant shall be released on personal bond with two sureties.

Mo Hasin vs State of Up — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:178688

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10325 of 2024 Applicant :- Mo Hasin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Kumar Sahu,Sunil Vashisth Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Sri Sunil Vashisth, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 0048 of 2023, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Collectorganj, District Kanpur Nagar, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has the apprehension of his arrest and has claimed parity with the co-accused Smt. Huda Fatima, who has already been granted anticipatory bail by another Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 4547 of 2024 vide order dated 7.5.2024.

¶9

Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant has criminal history of two cases, which stands explained. Since the case of the applicant is at par with the co-accused who has already been granted anticipatory bail, the applicant is also entitled for the same on the ground of parity.

¶10

The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned AGA. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him.

¶11

In the judgement of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself

¶12

cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021, coupled with the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 825 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 anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Mo Hasin involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶15

i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶16

ii. that 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;

¶17

iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶18

iv. that in case, the charge-sheet is submitted, the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶19

v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶21

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶22

Order Date :- 14.11.2024\Shalini

¶23

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mo Hasin v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mo Hasin v. State of Up

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Baba Seth Alias Baba Khan vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivam Rajput vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashutosh Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Singh vs State of Up and Another

Smt Ashi vs State of Up

Shubhankar Arya and Another vs State of U.P.