Single judge allowed bail to Mohd. Alam @ Aman in an offense involving execution of a fraudulent notary agreement, cheating, and forgery. The court found it a fit case for bail without commenting on merits.
Released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties with conditions against criminal activity and tampering with evidence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 37092 of 2020
Applicant :- Mohd. Alam @ Aman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rizwan Ullah Siddiqui Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bakhteyar Yusuf,Mohot Kumar
Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant in Court today, is taken on record.
Heard Sri Rizwan Ullah Siddiqui, learned counsel for applicant(s), learned A.G.A. as well as Sri Bakhteyar Yusuf, learned counsel for the complainant/informant and perused the record.
This bail application has been preferred by the accusedapplicant(s), Mohd. Alam @ Aman, who is involved in Case Crime No. 0039 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. P.S.- Sadar Bazar, DistrictSaharanpur.
The prosecution case in brief is that Bal Mukund Paswan, Sajid, Shamshad Rahmani, Rao Khurram and one Aman Kumar in furtherance of common intention to gain unlawful advantage got the notary agreement executed in favour of Bal Mukund Paswan in regard to property of Khasra No. 28 area 0.6460 hectare, Khasra No.2 area 2.9000 hectare, Khasra No. 29 area 1.3510 hectare, situate in Mauja Sarseena and this notorized deed was prepared by Mahavir Singh, Joli, Jatin Babita. Bal Mukund and Rao Khurram have got the agreement executed on 18.10.2019 in favour of complainant Nitesh Kumar Soni and all the accused persons have got Rs. 70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lacs from the complainant) and one cheque of Rs.16,00,000/(Rupees Sixteen Lacs) were also given but neither the sale-deed was executed in favour of the complainant nor amount was refunded, hence the aforementioned FIR has been lodged.
Learned counsel for the applicant(s) in support of his prayer for bail submits that the applicant(s) is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further contention is that the applicant is not named in the FIR and so far as criminal history is concerned for the same he has filed supplementary affidavit, in which only one case has been shown against him
and in the same very case applicant is on bail. It is further submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 01.09.2020.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the person Aman named in the FIR is very applicant, who has concocted his ID in the name and style of Alam and Alam is the very person, who is named in the FIR i.e. Aman.
The applicant Mohd. Alam has moved this bail application is not named in the FIR and if the person Aman is Alam the same cannot be ascertained at the stage of bail and this very question is to be determined at the stage of trial.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and going through the record, without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let applicant(s), Mohd. Alam @ Aman , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
(i) The applicant(s) shall not indulge in any criminal activity.
(ii) The applicant(s) shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
(iii) The applicant(s) shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) The applicant(s) shall regularly appear on the dates fixed by the trial court unless his personal attendance is exempted by the trial court.
In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, liberty is given to the trial court to cancel the bail of the applicant(s) without any reference to this Court.
Order Date :- 23.11.2020 Prajapati
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the case constitutes a fit case for bail application.
Whether the applicant, charged under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 323, 504, 506 IPC, satisfies bail conditions.
Mohd. Alam @ Aman
Subhash Chand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
