MOHAMMAD UBAID Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mrs. Swati Agrawal Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the First Information Report was lodged on 7/4/2023 in respect of an incident dtd. 6/4/2023. As per FIR, it is alleged that applicant has threatened the informant for payment of extortion of Rs.2.00 crore and has threatened for life. He submits that the FIR has been lodged under Ss. 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 and 386 IPC and subsequently investigation has been held and chargesheet has been submitted under Ss. 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 and 386 IPC. He submits that in the present case, there is no delivery of amount and even if the allegation as per FIR is taken to be correct, no case beyond Sec. 385 IPC is made out. He further submits that for punishment under Sec. 386 IPC, it has to be shown by prosecution that there was delivery to any person any property or valuable security or anything signed or sealed, which may be converted into a valuable security. He further submits that there is a long drawn previous enmity between the parties as both the parties have contested the election for Pradhani and both belong to same village. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has previous history of 10 cases. However his submission is based on the fact that even if the allegation of FIR is taken to be true then only under Sec. 385 IPC would be made out which is bailable offence.