Allahabad High Court
Mukhtar Ahmad ( Second Bail ) vs State Of U.P. on 7 October, 2020
Author: Narendra Kumar Johari
Bench: Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 33 Case :- BAIL No. - 9296 of 2018 Applicant :- Mukhtar Ahmad ( Second Bail ) Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ramakar Shukla,Shiv S.E. Chitambar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard Sri Shiv S.E. Chitambar, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA through video conferencing.
This second bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Mukhtar Ahmad seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Case Crime No. 301 of 2005, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504 IPC and 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, registered at P.S. Chanda, District Sultanpur.
First bail application was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 12.07.2006 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 3172 (B) of 2006.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He has not been convicted in any criminal case. It is further submitted that the other co-accused has already been released on bail. He is languishing in jail since 24.7.2017. The applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant is named in FIR. Only applicant has given the fatal injury to victim. All these grounds have been considered in the previous order of the Court dated 12.7.2006 and the Court has rejected the bail application. He has further submitted that a forged bail order was procured to release the applicant from the jail after rejection of bail application. On the basis of forged bail order, the applicant was released from jail and after a gap of many years, in the year 2017, he surrendered. Regarding the same a criminal case under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC is pending against his wife. The applicant has a criminal history of 11 cases.
In view of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it appears that no substantial, subsequent and changed circumstances/grounds have been mentioned by the learned counsel for the applicant hence, the Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for bail. Hence the second bail application of applicant Mukhtar Ahmad in the aforesaid case crime is hereby rejected.
It is directed to the court concerned to decide the case expeditiously according to law considering the mandates of Section 309 Cr.P.C., if there is no any legal impediment.
Order Date :- 7.10.2020 AKK