Allowed

Mohammad Ubaid v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Oct 2022/3949/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of a bail application filed by Mohammad Ubaid under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC. The court observed that a coordinate bench had already granted bail to a co-accused and the allegations appeared to be of a civil nature. Consequently, the court allowed bail to the applicant upon payment of a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail through a personal bond and two sureties with conditions to ensure attendance and non-tampering with evidence.

Mohammad Ubaid Vs State of U.P. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3949 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Mohammad Ubaid Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Alishah Faruqi,Ali Hasan,Mohd.Salman,Syed Mehfuzur Rehman,Vikas Vikram Singh

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Monika Singh,Roshan Babu Gupta,Shashikant Verma

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Roshan Babu Gupta and Shri Shashikant Verma, Advocates as learned counsel for the informants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No.0010 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., P.S.- Vikas Nagar, DistrictLucknow.

¶8

As per the version of First Information Report, the applicant is alleged to be one of the Directors of Company Revival Infratech India Pvt. Ltd. who is alleged to have duped certain amount of the informant which was paid to the said company in lieu of providing constructed house.

¶9

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is next added that in fact as per the agreement, the applicant had executed sale deed in favour of the informants and it is an admitted fact of the informants. It is next added that as far as the construction of house is concerned, the rest of the amount was not paid and, as such, the house was not constructed over the land in question. He also added that the matter pertains to dispute of civil nature which is being given the colour of criminality. The issue may be agitated before the civil court competent for performance of the conditions of the agreement. It is next added that the informant has also failed to demonstrate that how the area of the land which was transferred in the name of the informant through the registered sale deed, is not available on the spot. He next added that co-accused, namely, Mohammad Ubaid has already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal

¶10

Misc. Bail Application No. 8712 of 2021, vide order dated 05.05.2022 and the applicant is seeking the parity of the order aforesaid. He next added that the applicant has no any previous criminal history and his name has been connect with certain other matters after the instant First Information Report was lodged as he has mentioned this fact in para no.12 of the bail application. He also stated that no criminal intent is apparent from the perusal of the material. He also added that the applicant is a law abiding citizen and he is languishing in jail since 20.01.2021. In case he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have very vehemently opposed the aforesaid contention and submitted that the company in question was never registered with the Registrar of Companies and it has fraudulently been shown that the company is registered. They next added that in fact there is no land available on the spot and fraudulently showing the area of the land, the registered sale deed was executed in favour of the informant and further as per the agreement there was a promise that the constructed house will be given in lieu of the payment made by the informant. They added that in view of the above, the applicant is not entitled for any relief, but they do not dispute this fact that the co-accused has already been granted bail.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, I find that co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and from perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the informants, it is evident that they have failed to demonstrate and substantiate that how there is no any area remained as per the execution of the sale deed over the spot. Further the applicant has shown previous criminal history which has been shown after lodging of the present First Information Report and the applicant is languishing in jail since 20.01.2021 coupled with the facts that dispute in between the parties seems to be of civil nature.

¶13

Let the applicant- Mohammad Ubaid involved in the aforementioned 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:-

¶14

(1) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, or otherwise during the investigation or trial;

¶15

(2) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he

¶16

shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. He 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;

¶17

(3) 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.; and

¶18

(4) 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, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the applicant to prison.

¶20

It is clarified that the observations made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the merits of the case.

¶21

Order Date :- 13.10.2022 S. Shivhare

¶22

Digitally signed by SHASHANK SHIVHARE Date: 2022.10.17 22:47:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohammad Ubaid v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Ubaid 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home Department Lucknow

Nand Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Home Civil Secrt.Lko

Pradeep Kumar @ Dakiya Vs State of U.P. Thru, Prin, Secy. Home, Lko

Manoj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow

Basudev Goswami Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home Lko.

Raj Kumar Kushwaha @ Aryan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.