Tuesday, April 16, 2024

Allahabad High Court denies bail to Kairana SP MLA Nahid Hasan

The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail application of Samajwadi Party MLA Nahid Hasan of Kairana, Shamli, in the case of intimidation, abetment and betrayal.

A Single Bench of Justice Samit Gopal passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Nahid Hasan.

The bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant Nahid Hasan, seeking enlargement on bail during trial in connection with Session Trial, Case Crime under Section 406, 504, 506, IPC, registered at Police Station Kairana, District Shamli.

The FIR of the case was lodged on 26.09.2019 by Smt Shahjahan against the applicant and one other person, namely Nawab, alleging therein that her husband had given a Bolero pick-up vehicle of which he was the registered owner on rent in 2015 to co-accused Nawab, who was having a dairy business. Nawab did not pay the required monthly rent of the same on which he was countered to which he stated that he will give the same collectively. After some days, he stated that he would give Rs 1.5 lakh.

Later on her husband asked him for the return of the vehicle. On 22.04.2019, he came to know that the vehicle was standing in the premises of the applicant, who is the MLA, after which the first informant along with her husband went there to see the vehicle. A phone call was received by the husband of the first informant from the applicant who threatened them and told them to go back. They were also abused and threatened for life and even threatened that they would get involved in false cases. Her husband due to fear went to Police Station Kotwali after which the Inspector in-charge was sent to the place where the vehicle was standing and then again a threatening call was received and there were abuses received by the first informant and the threat of life was extended due to which her husband suffered heart attack after which he was taken to the doctor and from there he was referred to higher centre.

Next day, she received a call from the police station that the vehicle had been brought from the place of its standing and the same may be taken back by her. The rent due on it will be given to her. Nawab is a man of bad antecedents and is a relative of the MLA. On his saying, the applicant had called up the husband of the first informant and threatened him. The FIR has thus been lodged.

Counsel for the applicant argued that the incident is a petty offence and even otherwise as per the prosecution case, the vehicle was given on rent to co accused Nawab. The applicant was not entrusted with the vehicle. The applicant was not responsible for paying the rent of the vehicle. It is argued that although the applicant is stated to be having a criminal history of 17 cases but the said cases are petty cases and are cases only because of the reason that he is an active politician.

It is next argued that the parties have entered into a compromise which was drawn on 25.10.2021 between them and filed before the Additional District & Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) / M.P.MLA, Shamli at Kairana.

Counsel has further argued that during the pendency of investigation the applicant was granted stay of arrest till filing of police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC order dated 24.10.2019 passed in Criminal Misc Writ Petition.

It is argued that even in the said writ petition, the factum of compromise was considered which was filed therein and the concerned Court had passed an order in favour of the petitioners therein.

It is further argued that a charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted and as such there are no chances of the applicant not cooperating with the investigation or tampering with the evidence. It is further argued that the applicant is ill.

It is also argued that as such the applicant deserves to be released on bail. The applicant has been in jail since 29.01.2022.

Per contra, Counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that there is an audio recording of the threat extended by the applicant to the first informant and her husband of which an audio recording was provided by them which finds reference in the general diary also and the same is mentioned in the counter affidavit.

The Court noted,

It is argued that SubInspector Ajay Kasana got the vehicle recovered from the premises of the applicant and as such it cannot be said that the applicant had no concern with the said vehicle.

Counsel has further argued that the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the trial court the said compromise was rejected.

Counsel has fairly conceded to the fact that although audio recording is part of the general diary but there is no relevant certificate under the Evidence Act for the same.

It is argued that in the case also there are good chances of the applicant not cooperating with the trial, absconding and tampering with evidence and threatening the witnesses in spite of the fact that he is a public representative. It is argued that the applicant has a criminal history of 17 cases against him.

In so far as the argument of medical illness is concerned, counsel has argued that as per his instructions when the applicant was taken into custody and produced before the jail authorities, he did not complain of any such illness but it was only at a later stage ground of illness has cropped up and the same has been taken in the bail application for the first time.

“After having heard the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that although as per the prosecution case, the vehicle in question was not given to the applicant by the first informant and her husband, it was given to co-accused Nawab for being used by him and rent was decided to be paid by him. The said vehicle was recovered from the premises of the applicant. The applicant has a criminal history of 17 cases.

The order-sheet of the trial court shows that in spite of service of summons on 03.03.2021, the applicant kept on avoiding appearance before the trial court. It was only when he was arrested in another case he was then taken on remand in the case on 29.01.2022. The charge-sheet in the case shows that the first informant / Smt Shahjahan and Ummedrav her husband are the witnesses of the case and then there are 05 other formal witnesses.

In these circumstances, as of now, looking to the criminal history of the applicant and the order-sheet of the trial court which shows the absondence of the applicant and the apprehension of the applicant not co-operating in the trial and their being an apprehension of his tampering with evidence and threatening the witnesses, the Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. The applicant may renew his bail after the evidence of the first informant and her husband has been recorded by the trial court in the case,” the Court observed while rejecting the bail application.


News Update