Criminal Intimidation Case: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Uttar Pradesh MLA Nahid Hasan

The Allahabad High Court recently denied bail to Kairana MLA Nahid Hasan in connection with a case of criminal intimidation. The Bench of Justice Samit Gopal denied him bail looking to his criminal history and the order-sheet of the trial court showing that he avoided appearing before the trial court.

Essentially, an FIR was registered under Section 406, 504, 506, I.P.C against Hasan and one Nawab by one Shahjahan alleging therein that her husband had given a Bolero pick-up vehicle of which he was the registered owner on rent in the year 2015 to co-accused Nawab.

Case in brief

It was further alleged that Nawab did not pay the required monthly rent of the same and therefore, finally on 22.04.2019, when they came to know that the vehicle was standing in the premises of the applicant (Hasan), both the first informant and her husband went there to see the vehicle and that is when they got a phone call from the applicant (Hasan) who threatened them and told them to go back.

It was thier case that they were also abused and threatened for life and even threat was extended that they would be got 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. 

Hasan's counsel argued before the court that the incident is a petty offence and even otherwise as per the prosecution case, the vehicle was given on rent to coaccused Nawab. The applicant was not entrusted with the vehicle.

On the other hand, the state argued that the applicant had been avoiding appearance in the Court in spite of service of summons and that there are good chances of him not co-operating with the trial in the instant case, and that he may abscond and tamper with evidence and threaten the witnesses in spite of the fact that he is a public representative

Court's observations 

After having heard the counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the Court observed that although as per the prosecution case, the vehicle in question was not given to the applicant by the first informant and her husband, but the said vehicle was recovered from the premises of the applicant.

Further, the Court noted that he has criminal history of 17 cases and as per the the order-sheet of the trial court, 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 this case on 29.01.2022. 

"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, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. The applicant may renew his prayer of bail after the evidence of first informant and her husband has been recorded by the trial court in the present case," the Court observed as it denied him the benefit of bail.

Case title - Nahid Hasan v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8054 of 2022]

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 317

Click Here To Read/Download Order