Dismissed

Mohammad Shahid v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Aug 2024ABAIL/6556/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC in a Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act case was rejected. The applicant had previously obtained anticipatory bail till submission of police report but failed to appear before the trial court for 18 dates after cognizance and summons, showing misuse of earlier liberty.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mohammad Shahid Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6556 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Mohammad Shahid Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Aftab Alam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Aftab Alam, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Mohammad Shahid with the following prayers:-

¶7

"It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application and kindly direct to release the applicant on Anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial in the event of his arrest by the police in Case Crime No. 429 of 2019, u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Police Station Kotwali Shahar, District Bulandshahar, and/or grant such other or further relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case otherwise, the applicant shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury.

¶8

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant an interim bail to the applicant in Case Crime No. 429 of 2019, u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Police Station Kotwali Shahar, District Bulandshahar, during the pendency of the aforesaid application before this Hon'ble Court, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."

¶9

Prior notice of this anticipatory bail application was served in the office of the learned Government Advocate, High Court, Allahabad and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.: 8072 of 2020 - Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned State counsel as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required since learned counsel for the State informs the Court

¶10

that he has received the required instructions in the matter.

¶11

Learned counsel for the State submits that he has received full and complete instructions in the matter.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 22.07.2019 passed by another Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 28972 of 2019 till submission of police report, if any, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent court. It is submitted that investigation the matter has concluded and a charge sheet dated 27.09.2021 has been submitted against the applicant and the court concerned has taken cognizance and summoned the applicant vide order dated 07.2.2022. It is submitted that during period of investigation the applicant had co-operated in it and there is nothing reported that he avoided the investigation or did not cooperate or even tempered with the evidence. It is submitted that in so far as the facts of the matter are concerned, it remain the same as were available even initially on the basis of which the applicant was granted anticipatory bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and while demonstrating from the order sheet of the trial court from 07.1.2022 to 13.06.2024 it is submitted that cognizance in the mater was taken and the accused-applicant was summoned vide order dated 07.2.2022 and since then he did not appear before the trial court even on 18 dates have been fixed up to 13.06.2024 despite the fact that he was granted anticipatory bail till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on an application for anticipatory bail filed by him. It is submitted that as such it cannot be said that he was not in the knowledge of the proceedings against him and even then he conveniently avoided the trial which goes to show his conduct. It is submitted that even during investigation, material and evidence have been collected against him after which charge sheet has been submitted on which cognizance has been taken and he has been summoned by the trial court concerned. It is submitted that as such the prayer for anticipatory bail be rejected.

¶14

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 22.07.2019 by another Bench of this Court till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Cognizance on the charge sheet dated 27.09.2021 was taken by the court concerned vide order dated 07.2.2022 and then he was summoned, after which he did not appear before the trial court on

¶15

18 further dates up to 13.6.2024. This clearly shows his conduct and also shows misuse of liberty of anticipatory bail granted to him earlier.

¶16