Dismissed

Israrul Haque Khan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC1 Sept 2021ABAIL/13709/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a petition for anticipatory bail. The applicant faced charges of cheating and forgery related to a land deal involving nabul land. The court deemed the case too serious for bail at this stage due to the need for an unimpeded investigation.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail rejected; order passed on merits without requiring further time to Government Advocate.

Israrul Haque Khan Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13709 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Israrul Haque Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Prabha Shanker Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

¶6

By means of the present application the applicant who is apprehending his arrest is seeking his anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.741 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Civil Lines, District-Allahabad.

¶7

From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court after getting his anticipatory bail rejected from the Court of Session vide order dated 30.6.2021.

¶8

Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P. , hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

¶9

The allegation made in the F.I.R. is that the applicant has taken Rs.40.20 lacs from the informant in order to provide the plot in question. The applicant has fabricated a forged agreement in favour of the informant. When the informant made inquiry, it revealed that the plot in question is a nazul land. The applicant said the informant that he would give him another plot or his money would be returned back, but he has not provided any plot nor returning the money of the informant. The investigation in the case is going on.

¶10

Taking into account the gravity of accusation, the Court feels that in order to have indepth probe into the matter, the Investigating Officer of the case should be given fullest liberty to choose its own course for the transparent investigation. Thus, giving a panoramic view of the matter the Court is not inclined to exercise its powers in favour of the applicant, and thus the present anticipatory bail application is hereby REJECTED.

¶11

Order Date :- 1.9.2021 M. Kumar

Israrul Haque Khan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Israrul Haque 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

Pawan Kumar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sarika Rai Vs State of U.P.

Annu Alias Sunil Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Shahrukh Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another