Allowed

Mohd. Azam Ali (as Per Fir Azam Siddiqui) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC29 Sept 2022/4903/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a bail application filed by Mohd. Azam Ali in a cheating case. The applicant, detained since November 2021, sought bail citing prior bail grants in similar cases. The court granted bail subject to sureties and strict conditions requiring personal presence and an undertaking against producing false witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount.

Mohd. Azam Ali (as Per Fir Azam Siddiqui) Vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4903 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Azam Ali (As Per Fir Azam Siddiqui) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Irfan Siddiqui,Anjum Ara Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Srivastava, 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.0662 of 2019, under Sections 420,409,467,468,471 I.P.C., P.S. Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow.

¶8

As per the allegation in the F.I.R., five accused persons including the present applicant are said to have duped money of many persons who had deposited in the company on the assurance of the accused persons that their money would be double within one year.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant was neither authorized signatory nor empowered to operate the account of the aforesaid company. In other twelve cases, on the same set of facts, F.I.R. were lodged and, in some of those cases, the applicant has been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court, vide order dated 30.8.2022, 6.7.2022, 7.6.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.6225 of 2022, 4862 of 2022 and 5830 of 2022. He is seeking parity of the orders aforesaid in the instant matter. The applicant is languishing in jail since 10.11.2021. In case, the applicant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty and will co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. for the State has very vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid and submitted that the present applicant has duped the money of certain persons. He is involved in so many

¶11

cases and, as such, he is not entitled to be released on bail but he could not dispute the fact that the present applicant has been enlarged on bail in the similar set of facts by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court of the F.I.R. for the same Company.

¶12

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 case of bail.

¶13

Let the applicant Mohd. Azam Ali 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 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;

¶16

(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

¶17

(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.

¶18

The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by the court concerned and in case of breach of

¶19

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 :- 29.9.2022 dk/

¶22

Digitally signed by DEVENDRA KUMAR Date: 2022.09.30 17:35:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Azam Ali (as Per Fir Azam Siddiqui) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Azam Ali (as Per Fir Azam Siddiqui) v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Jaffar @ Chanda Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Home Lko.

Altaf Hanif Qureshi @ Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Izahan Hasan Khan S/O Sri Hasan Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Bharat Chawla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dinesh Srivasatava Vs State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Nanhu @ Rohit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.