Nobody Dares To Depose Against Dreaded Criminals Out Of Fear: Allahabad HC Denies Bail To Atique Ahmad’s Aid In...
Background
Atique Ahmad and his associates are notorious criminals in Uttar Pradesh, often associated with serious offences such as murder, extortion, and organized crime.
In this particular case, the accused sought bail, but the Allahabad High Court denied it, highlighting the difficulty of witnesses coming forward due to fear of retribution.
Legal Principles
Bail as a Rule, Custody as an Exception
Normally, under Sections 436 and 437 CrPC, bail is a right in bailable offences and a discretion in non-bailable offences.
Factors Affecting Bail in Serious Cases
Courts exercise caution in granting bail when:
The accused is a dangerous or dreaded criminal.
There is a fear of intimidation or harm to witnesses.
The offence is serious, affecting public safety.
Witness Intimidation Principle
If no witness is willing to depose due to fear, it raises a grave concern for the administration of justice.
The court may hold that granting bail would interfere with the trial and investigation.
Allahabad High Court Observations
Fear of Witnesses:
HC observed that nobody dares to depose against dreaded criminals, which undermines the criminal justice system.
Denial of Bail:
Bail was denied to prevent:
Interference with witnesses
Obstruction of investigation
Potential continuation of criminal activities
Public Interest Consideration:
The court emphasized that protection of society and witnesses outweighs individual liberty in such cases.
Relevant Case Laws
State of U.P. v. Atique Ahmad & Ors.
HC reiterated that dreaded criminals cannot lightly be granted bail.
Observed that granting bail in such cases would endanger witnesses and public order.
Raghubir Singh v. State of U.P. (SC)
Supreme Court held that the likelihood of witness intimidation is a valid ground to deny bail.
State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (AIR 1977 SC 2447)
Court stated that bail may be refused when the accused has potential to tamper with evidence or threaten witnesses.
State of Maharashtra v. Somnath Keshav Survase (SC)
Emphasized that public interest and safety of witnesses can outweigh personal liberty while granting bail.
Summary Table
| Aspect | Court’s Position |
|---|---|
| Accused Type | Dreaded criminal / history of violent offences |
| Bail Consideration | Denied if witnesses are likely to be intimidated |
| Legal Principle | Protection of investigation & witnesses outweighs individual liberty |
| Case Laws | Atique Ahmad v. State of U.P., Raghubir Singh v. U.P., Balchand v. State of Rajasthan |
| Public Interest | High priority in cases involving organized crime |
Key Takeaway
The Allahabad High Court has reinforced the principle that in cases involving notorious criminals:
Fear of witnesses is a crucial factor against granting bail.
Public interest and integrity of investigation take precedence over individual liberty.
Courts will deny bail to prevent interference in trial and intimidation of witnesses.
RELATED Blog
0 comments