Dismissed

Nazim v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Jan 2025ABAIL/354/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application for anticipatory bail was rejected. The court held that the applicant had evaded the process of law and failed to appear despite summons, including after an earlier Section 482 application to quash the charge-sheet was dismissed. Such conduct barred the grant of bail.

What did the court decide?

Anti cipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.

Nazim vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:8499

¶2

Court No. - 67

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 354 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Nazim Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Singh Tomar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

This application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 460 of 2019, under Sections 498A, 323, 452, 354B, 307, 376, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police StationMansoor Pur, District- Muzaffar Nagar.

¶7

At the outset, learned A.G.A. submits that after investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the applicant and the applicant was summoned by the court concerned. The applicant filed an application under Section 482 No. 9668 of 2022 (Mohammad Nazim @ Nazim vs. State of U.P. and another) for quashing the charge-sheet dated 04.07.2020, cognizance order dated 27.08.2020 as well as nonbailable warrant dated 14.12.2021. The said application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 07.05.2022. The applicant is evading the process of law and had failed to appear before the court concerned

¶8

Head counsel for the applicant, Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

Perusal of the order sheet shows that the applicant was summoned by the concerned court vide order dated 16.10.2020. The applicant challenged the chargesheet, cognizance order as well as order issuing non-bailable warrant dated 14.12.2021 by filing an application under Section 482 No. 9668 of 2022 (Mohammad Nazim @ Nazim vs. State of U.P. and another). The said application was dismissed on 07.05.2022. The applicant is well aware of the pending proceedings. The issuance of coercive measures against the applicant by the concerned court has not been disputed by the counsel for the applicant. In view, thereof, such conduct of the applicant does not entitle him for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶10

Accordingly, the application is hereby rejected.

¶11

Order Date :- 20.1.2025 Sachin Mishra

¶12

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

Nazim v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazim v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Prveen Alias Anil Alias Langda vs State of U.P.

Omveer vs State of U.P.

Shani Alias Golu vs State of U.P.

Sachin Alias Sachin Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gopal Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Nishad vs State of U.P.