Allowed

Rasheed Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Oct 2020BAIL/19997/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Allahabad, Court No. 70, allowed bail to the applicant in a criminal case involving cheating, forgery, and criminal intimidation. The court granted bail referencing a Supreme Court dictum without expressing an opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on execution of a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions regarding conduct and court order verification.

Rasheed Ahmad Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 19997 of 2020 Applicant :- Rasheed Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashfaq Ahmed Ansari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Imran Ullah,Mohd Imdad Siddiqui

¶2

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Rajesh Yadav and Sri Ashfaq Ahmed Ansari, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Mohd. Imdad Siddiqui and Sri Imranullah, learned counsels for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶4

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Rasheed Ahmad, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 523 of 2019 under Sections 147, 504, 506, 419, 420, 467, 468, 386 I.P.C., Police Station- Jhunsi, District- Prayagraj, during pendency of trial.

¶5

Allegation in the F.I.R. is that the informant is the Secretary of Sri Prayagraj Sahkari Awas Samiti Limited and the society got the sale deed of plot no. 1228 area 5 bigha executed from the recorded tenure holders, Smt. Anju Kesarwani and others on 23.08.2014. On 15.06.2019 at about 4 p.m. when the informant went over the plot purchased by the society, the applicant along with co-accused persons abused him and asked him not to come over the land. In case the informant wants to do something over the land, he should pay Rs. 1 crore to the applicant. The informant was also threatened of life. The applicant on the basis of a fabricated sale deed of the year 1954 claimed right over the land. The will has been executed by one Mohd. Mehndi. There is no mention of plot no. 1228 in the will written in Urdu. The will in the possession of the applicant is forged. The informant has come to know that the plot no. 1228 along with plot nos. 436/1, 449M and plot no. 654 were recorded in the name of Mohd. Mehndi, Ahmed Mehndi and Mahmood Mehndi. The aforesaid lands were divided by the three between themselves. Mohd. Mehndi got plot no. 1228 and 436/1 and his name was recorded in the revenue record. The applicant has forged the will only to usurp the property in dispute. He has got fabricated identity proofs prepared. The applicant is a fraud and has filed civil suit only to make the land disputed and is demanding Rs. 1 crore by way of extortion from the informant.

¶6

Learned counsels for the applicant have submitted that the informant is an Ex-M.L.A. of the locality and involved in number of cases. He has lodged the present F.I.R. on the basis of false allegations. The applicant has already instituted suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 23.08.2014 allegedly executed by Smt. Anju Kesarwani and others in favour of informant on 29.03.2016. An objection u/s 9A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by the applicant before the Consolidation Officer to correct the revenue records and record the name of Mohd. Mehndi S/O Wajid Khan as owner of the land in dispute since he was issueless and he executed will in favour of applicant, Rasheed Ahmad, on 15.12.1954. Learned Consolidation Officer has passed an order dated 06.07.2019 declaring the applicant as owner of the property in dispute and an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in this regard is pending. The allegations in the F.I.R. are absolutely incorrect. The applicant is in jail since 27.11.2019 and has no criminal history to his

¶7

credit.

¶8

Learned counsels for the informant have filed a counter affidavit stating that there was no person named Mohd. Mehndi S/O Wajid Khan and the will has been created in the name of fictitious person. In the pending suit, the applicant has shown his wrong pedigree. He has criminal history of two cases to the best of the knowledge of the deponent.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant.

¶10

Having considered the material on record, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-

¶11

The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.

¶12

The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.

¶13

The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶14

In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.

¶15

The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored. The accused will furnish sureties to the satisfaction of the court below within a month after normal functioning of the courts are restored. In case the court below is functioning normally, this condition will not apply and the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the court below.

¶16

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶17

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

Order Date :- 15.10.2020/KS

Rasheed Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rasheed Ahmad 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Israr Khan Vs State of U.P.

Manoj @ Golu Vs State of U.P.

Kartar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Arjun Vs State of Up

Zakir Ahmad Khan @ Zakir Husain Vs State of U.P.

Rasheed Ahmad Vs State of U.P.