Allowed

Qadeer Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Allahabad HC27 Sept 2022/4797/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court disposed of a bail application filed by the applicant in a cheating and forgery case. After hearing arguments regarding innocence and the nature of the charge, the court found it to be a fit case for bail, subject to specific conditions and bonds without expressing a view on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and specific conditions to ensure appearance and non-interference with witnesses.

Qadeer Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4797 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Qadeer Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Romit Seth Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Narendra Gupta

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

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. 310 of 2016, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 294 and 506 of the I.P.C., P.S.-Kotwali, District - Sitapur.

¶7

As per the version of the F.I.R., Rs.23,00,000/- is said to be duped by the present applicant including the other co-accused persons.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to ulterior motive. He submits that the present applicant has never transferred the property in the name of informant and further he was not involved in any kind of offence in collusion with other accused persons. He submits that the power of attorney was executed on 23.02.2015 and the sale-deed was executed prior to the same, i.e., on 31.01.2015, and as such, there is no possibility of committing fraud or cheat with the informant. He has further submitted that he has explained the criminal history in paragraph 19 of the bail applicant and except this, there is no previous criminal antecedents of the applicant. He added that the charge-sheet has been filed in the matter and there is no possibility of fleeing away of the present applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 07.04.2022. He has also shown certain falsity in the allegations made in the F.I.R. In case if the applicant is granted bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has very vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid and submitted that the present applicant including the other co-accused persons have arrived at a compromise on 18.03.2017, wherein, the applicant including

¶10

the other co-accused have agreed to repay the amount of Rs. 23,30,000/-. He submits that the present applicant has neither repaid back the applicant including the co-accused nor honored the aforesaid agreement, and as such, the present applicant is not entitled for any relief.

¶11

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 considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶12

Let the applicant Qadeer Ahmad involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on her 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 she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. She shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her 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 her 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 her, in accordance with law under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 27.9.2022 Anurag, APS

¶20

Digitally signed by ANURAG SINGH Date: 2022.09.29 18:33:37 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Qadeer Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Qadeer Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko

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

Anil Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow

Akram Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Lucknow

Sandeep Pasi @ Chirraiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Saleem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ramesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary Home Lko.

Sachin Nayar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.