Allowed

Maksood Ali Khan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2019BAIL/23174/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second bail application for offences under IPC sections for cheating and criminal breach of trust, the court granted bail allowing the applicant to secure release on personal bond with sureties and standard conditions, directing the trial court to decide the case expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond with two sureties; trial directed to be decided expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

Maksood Ali Khan Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 23174 of 2016 Applicant :- Maksood Ali Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Kumar Mishra,Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kr. Srivastava,Sanjay Kr. Srivastava,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava

¶3

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶4

This is a second bail application moved on behalf of applicant praying to enlarge the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.802 2014, under Sections 420, 406, 409, 323, 506, 467, 468, 471, IPC, Police Station Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mahip Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri R. K. Maurys, learned AGA for the State.

¶6

This is second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order dated 16.03.2016.

¶7

It has been contended by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 29.01.2015 and the trial has not yet been concluded. Further contended that inspite of the repeated summons are being issued to the witnesses, but they are not appearing before the court concerned. Further contended that the offence is trainable by the learned Magistrate. The criminal history of the applicant of one case has been explained, in as much as, even in the said case the applicant was granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.10.2019.

¶8

Learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA appearing for the State opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶9

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that the criminal history of the applicant have been explained, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.

¶10

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicant Maksood Ali Khan involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶12

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶13

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶14

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶15

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which applicant is suspected.

¶16

v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the learned counsel for the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶18

However, it is directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

¶19

It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.

¶20

Order Date :- 15.2.2019/VKG

Maksood Ali Khan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maksood Ali Khan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeev Chauhan @ Sanju Vs State of U.P.

Azad Vs State of U.P.

Shailesh Srivatava Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Janu Alias Anuj Vs State of U.P.

Krishna Pratap Kushwaha Vs State of U.P.