Dismissed

Hamid v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2024BAIL/2144/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2144 of 2024, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) rejected the application of Hamid seeking bail in a case involving sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 IPC. The court held that given the applicant's prior convictions and expanding criminal history, his involvement, and the nature of the offense, it was not a fit case for bail. The trial court was d

What did the court decide?

Bailprayer of the applicant rejected. Trial directed to be concluded expeditiously.

Hamid vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45295

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2144 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Hamid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Jaikaran Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amar Nath Dubey

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No.160 of 2021 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Section 7 Crl. Law Amendment Act, Police StationJethwara, District- Pratapgarh.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case as the said incident, which was taken place during the course of election, was caused by some other person, but the applicant was implicated in the case as well as in Case Crime No.53 of 2021, in which, associate of the applicant was killed by the members of the complainant's side. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 07.07.2021 but till today not even a single witness has been examined. He further submits that the applicant was implicated in 12 cases and detail of the criminal antecedent is given in paragraph no.2 of the supplementary affidavit and the trial is not going on, hence, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicant. They jointly submit that the applicant is having criminal histories as he was convicted in Case Crime No. 220 of 1994 under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C., Police Station- Jethwara, District- Pratapgarh, in which, he has been enlarged on bail in Crl. Appeal No. 926 of 2001, thereafter, he was again convicted in Case Crime No. 178 of 1993 under Section 307 I.P.C., in which case also, he has been enlarged on bail in Crl. Appeal No. 997 of 2010, hence, he is not entitled for bail.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of the bail application, F.I.R. as well as other relevant documents; it is evident that the applicant was convicted in two criminal cases as mentioned above, in which, he has been enlarged on bail, at the same time, his involvement was found in the present case as well as other cases also. Thus, it is not a fit case for bail.

¶11

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶12

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶13

Office is directed to communicate this order to District and Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh for necessary compliance, forthwith.

¶14

Order Date :- 3.7.2024 Arpan

¶15

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

Hamid v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hamid v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

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

Madhevendra Singh Vs Sri Ashok Kumar, Aqgarwal, Engineer in Chief Parkalp/Niyojan Public Works Deptt. Lko.

Mohd. Naseem Uddin Vs Kunal Silku, Dir. Training and Employment U.P. Lko. and Another

Mansoor Ahamad @ Masroor Ahamad Vs Mala Srivastava, District Magistrate, Rae Bareli

Raj Rastogi @ Jagdamba Prasad Rastogi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lucknow

Karm Ruchi Singh Somvanshi Vs Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Hardoi

Chandraprakash Vs Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lko.