Allowed

Rasheed Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Oct 2020BAIL/27930/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal bail application, the High Court ordered the release of the applicant on bail subject to the furnishing of a personal bond and two sureties, conditioned on the restoration of normal court functions and adherence to specific safeguards regarding tampering or adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail subject to the furnishing of a personal bond and two sureties, with conditions including no tampering with evidence and cooperation in the trial.

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

¶1

Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27930 of 2020 Applicant :- Rasheed Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashfaq Ahmed Ansari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd Imdad Siddiqui,Imranullah

¶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. 211 of 2019 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 471, 384 I.P.C., Police Station- Jhunsi, District- Allahabad, during pendency of trial.

¶5

Allegation in the F.I.R. is that the informant purchased plot no. 1228, area 1.141 hectare from Smt. Anju Kesarwani W/O late Surya Prakash Kesarwani on 23.08.2014 through a sale deed in the name of Sri Prayagraj Sahkari Awas Samiti Limited. The aforesaid land was recorded in the name of Mahmood Mehndi in the khatauni and was sold to Smt. Anju Kesarwani and others on 23.03.2012 who had got their names mutated. After purchasing the aforesaid land from Smt. Anju Kesarwani and others, the informant got the mutation effected in the records and he is recorded as such in the revenue records. The applicant came in the office of the informant and alleged that in the year 1954, the will was executed regarding the land aforesaid in his favour and in case, he wants to continue in possession of the same, he should pay Rs. 50,00,000/- to him. The informant enquired from the office of Sub-Registrar but no such will was found in the records. The applicant wants money by way of blackmailing 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 credit.

¶7

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.

¶8

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

¶9

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 :-

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

Rasheed Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

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