Dismissed

Umar Farooq v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC25 Feb 2021ABAIL/721/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In response to a criminal anticipatory bail application filed by Umar Farooq, the Allahabad High Court rejected the plea. The Court observed that the applicant failed to comply with a prior Supreme Court order directing him to apply for regular bail and surrender within four weeks. Finding that the applicant filed the current application without disclosing this non-compliance and that he approache

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application is rejected, and the interim anticipatory bail granted on 18.01.2021 is vacated.

Umar Farooq Vs State of U.P and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

Reserved on :- 23.02.2021 Delivered on :- 25.02.2021

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 721 of 2021

¶4

Applicant :- Umar Farooq Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Farman Ahmad Naqvi(Senior Adv.),Fatma Anjum,Syed Farman Ahmad Naqvi(Senior Adv.),Zaheer Asghar

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinod Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Syed Farman Ahmad Naqvi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Syed Ahmad Faizan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vinod Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

Order on Criminal Misc. Exemption Application

¶9

This exemption application is allowed.

¶10

Order on Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application

¶11

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant , Umar Farooq, in Case Crime No. 28 of 2019, under Sections- 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, DistrictBulandshahr.

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

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.

¶15

An F.I.R dated 09.01.2019 was registered against the applicant alleging offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust, fabrication of documents, etc. There was dispute between the partners of a partnership firm which led to the lodging of the aforesaid F.I.R.

¶16

The applicant approached this Court praying for quashing of the F.I.R dated 09.01.2019 by way of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2059 of 2019 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 24.01.2019 refusing to quash the F.I.R but directing the applicant to move application for bail within 10 days and for 10 days, it was directed that no coercive measure like arrest shall be taken against the applicant.

¶17

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has submitted that a final report dated 15.03.2020 was submitted in favour of the applicant and therefore, he did not apply for bail as per the order dated 24.01.2019 of this Court. On 09.09.2020, he received a notice from an Inspector of Crime Branch and the applicant was directed to get his statement recorded. Similar notice was issued to him on 18.09.2020. The applicant submitted his replies to the aforesaid notices and then applied for grant of anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr which was rejected on 23.12.2020 and hence, he approached this Court by way of above noted application praying for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶18

On 18.01.2021, Sri Vinod Singh, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of the informant and prayed for two weeks’ time to file counter affidavit which has been filed.

¶19

Learned counsel for the informant, relying upon Annexure No. C.A.2 has submitted that after the Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2059 of 2019 was disposed of refusing to quash the F.I.R lodged

¶20

¶21

against the applicant, he approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 1416 of 2019 which was dismissed by the order dated 15.02.2019 granting four weeks’ time to the applicant to surrender and move regular bail application before the trial court and the applicant was granted interim protection from arrest in the meantime.

¶22

Learned counsel for the informant has next submitted that the applicant did not complied the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 15.02.2019 when as per the own admission of the applicant’s Senior Counsel, final report was submitted in his favour on 15.03.2020. Therefore, it is clear that in the 4 weeks’ time granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the applicant never surrendered and applied for regular bail before the court concerned. However, he has again filed an anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr which was rightly rejected and has now, approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail without disclosing the order dated 15.02.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He has submitted that there is no averment in the affidavit in support of the bail application that against the order dated 24.01.2019 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2059 of 2019, he approached the Hon’ble Apex Court. He has submitted that the applicant has not approached this Court with clean hands and has concealed the material document from the Court which was an order of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

¶23

After considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that the applicant was directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court to apply for regular bail on 15.02.2019. He has not applied for bail till date before the regular Court and has audacity to file anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court as well as this Court without disclosing the corrrect facts. Therefore, the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the applicant.

¶24

¶25

The anticipatory bail application is accordingly, rejected.

¶26

The interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant on 18.01.2021 is vacated.

¶27

Order Date :- 25.02.2021 KS

Umar Farooq v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umar Farooq v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mehtab Vs State of U.P.

Rambabu @ Ram Prakash Sah Vs State of U.P. and Another

Guru Charan and 8 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Chandra Prakash and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aparna Purohit Vs State of U.P.

Anuj Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P.