Allowed

Afroz Khan Alias Chunnu v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2022/4092/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous bail application, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) granted bail to the applicant, Afroz Khan, accused under various sections of the IPC. The Court noted the applicant was not named in the FIR, had acquittals in most past cases, and his situation matched a co-accused already granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding tampering, attendance, and adjournments.

Afroz Khan Alias Chunnu Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4092 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Afroz Khan Alias Chunnu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Sinha,Umang Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Siddharth, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.K. Sahi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Aniruddh Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Instant bail application has been filed with a prayer to release the applicant on bail during the trial in Case Crime No. 369 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 177, 506 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the instant matter. He further added that the present applicant is not named in the first information report. The allegation against the applicant is that he was some seen time sitting inside the car which was registered in the name of co-accusd Dr. Alka Rai. He submits that one of the co-accused namely Mohd. Shahid has been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13252 of 2021 vide order dated 18.11.2021. The applicant is claiming parity of the order aforesaid. He submits that the case of the present applicant is identical to the case of Mohd. Shahid. He next contends that he has explained the previous criminal antecedent of the applicant in para 34 of the bail application as well as in para 35 of the rejoinder affidavit. As per the record, 18 cases previous criminal history have been shown against the applicant, out of which he has been acquitted in 14 cases. The applicant is law abiding citizen and is languishing in jail since 04.03.2022. In case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶8

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has very vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid but he

¶9

could not dispute the fact that similarly situated coaccused has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and further there is no any criminal history against the applicant except the cases explained above.

¶10

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that the present applicant is not named in the FIR; 18 cases criminal history has been explained and out of 18 cases, in 14 cases he has been acquitted and four cases are pending . Further the case of the applicant is identical to the case of co-accused Mohd. Shahid, who has been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the applicant is languishing in jail since 04.03.2022.

¶11

Thus, considering the submissions of learned counsel of both sides, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶12

Let the applicant- Afroz Khan @ Chunnu 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:-

¶13

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

¶14

(2) 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. 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;

¶15

(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

¶16

(4) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

Order Date :- 23.9.2022 A.Kr*

¶21

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR Date: 2022.09.27 11:10:26 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Afroz Khan Alias Chunnu v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afroz Khan Alias Chunnu 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

Jagannath @ Lavkush Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd. Azam Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sarvesh Kumar Agrahari Vs State of U.P.

Chunnu Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy.Dept. of Home

Dharnidhar Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ajay Prakash Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.