Allowed

Syed Ghulam Syedain Rizvi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2021BAIL/8727/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second bail application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court granted bail to the applicant in a non-bailable offence despite prior rejection, noting that a co-accused was released by the Supreme Court and the charge had not been framed.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. One lac with two sureties on specified conditions.

Syed Ghulam Syedain Rizvi Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 8727 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Syed Ghulam Syedain Rizvi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- M J Akhtar,Viquar Mehdi Zaidi (Senior Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bhanu Prakash Tiwari,Sharad Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Imran Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhijit Mukhurjee, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Jay Narayan, learned Additional Government Advocates for the State.

¶6

This is the second bail application. The first bail application came to be rejected vide order dated 26.11.2020.

¶7

It is urged that the changed circumstance in filing the instant bail application is that co-accused, Ubaidul Haq has been enlarged on bail by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 27.9.2021 passed in SLP (Criminal) No. 3596 of 2021. The Supreme Court has noted in the order that ' the trial court has already taken cognizance of the crime, but the matter has not proceeded further, including for framing of charge against the appellant. ' It is urged that till date the charge has not been framed; the Chairman of the Waqf Board and other co-accused have been enlarged on bail; the applicant was the head clerk of the Waqf Board and is having no other criminal antecedents;

¶8

As per the prosecution case, he merely carried out the orders and instructions of the Chairman of the Waqf Board; the applicant undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not seek unnecessary adjournments except with the leave of the court; The applicant is languishing in jail since 3.7.2020.There is no likelihood of early disposal of trial and the applicant undertakes that if enlarge on bail, he will never misuse his liberty and will cooperate in the trial

¶9

Learned AGA submits that the accused persons are not cooperating with the trial taking advantage of an order passed by this Court in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 17263 of 2020 on 26.11.2020, in so far as it relates to coaccused, Faiz Zaidi. On specific query, learned State counsel does not deny that no effort has been made by the State to seek

¶10

modification / rejection of the order directing no coercive action against the co-accused, Faiz Zadi.

¶11

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶12

Let the applicant - Syed Ghulam Syedain Rizvi involved in Case Crime No. 312 of 2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 447, 409, 201, 120B I.P.C. and 3 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, Police Station Azeem Nagar, District Rampur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. One lac with two sureties (one should be of his family members) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶14

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶17

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

¶18

(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶19

(vii) 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.

¶20

In view of the extraordinary situation prevailing in the State due to Covid-19, the directions of this Court dated 6.4.2020 passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 564 of 2020 (In re vs. State of U.P.), shall also be complied.

¶21

The order reads thus:

¶22

"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."

¶23

Order Date :- 3.12.2021 Arif

Syed Ghulam Syedain Rizvi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Ghulam Syedain Rizvi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Kumar Dixit Vs Union of India

Mandvi Mishra Vs State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary Basic Educatio

Sube @ Subedar Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Ashwani Chanana and Another Vs C.B.I

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Heerauti Devi Vs State of U.P.