Allowed

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

Allahabad HC30 Aug 2022/6225/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, allowed a bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC for an accused charged with cheating and criminal conspiracy. The court cited relevant Supreme Court precedents and discharged the applicant on personal bond and sureties subject to standard conditions without opining on merits.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions to refrain from tampering with witnesses and to appear in the trial court.

Mohd. Azam Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6225 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Azam Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Irfan Siddiqui,Anjum Ara

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Mohammad Irfan Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Prakash Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant Mohd. Azam Ali under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 549 of 2019, for offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station- Vibhutikhand, District- Lucknow during pendency of the trial.

¶9

As per allegation of the first information report dated 18.08.2019, which has been lodged against 5 named persons excluding the applicant stating that applicant and other coaccused persons are said to have duped the money of various persons on the pretext that their money would be doubled within a span of one year.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that applicant is neither authorize signatory nor have any power to operate accounts of the aforesaid company. It is further submitted that applicant has resigned from the company prior to lodging of the F.I.R. It is further submitted that 12 other F.I.R's have been registered against the applicant which are in the same set of allegations from different investors out of 12 cases, he has been granted bail in 3 cases by court below.

¶11

It is further submitted that co-accused Rajesh Pandey and Mohd. Shareef having similar role has already been granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 3576 of 2022 and 10279 of 2021 vide orders dated 11.04.2022 and 08.04.2022 respectively.

¶12

It is next contended that there is no other criminal antecedent to his credit. It is next submitted that there is also no possibility of the applicant either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. The applicant, who is languishing in jail since 10.11.2021, undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty, if granted. It has also been pointed out that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

¶13

Per contra , learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the court below and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But they would not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the applicant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶15

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let applicant, Mohd. Azam Ali be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶17

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such

¶18

facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶20

(iii) 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 of Cr.P.C.

¶21

(iv) 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 the trial court.

¶22

(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶23

(vi) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that 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 in accordance with law.

¶25

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavor and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the applicant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶26

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶27

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶28

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

¶29

declaration of such verification in writing.

¶30

Order Date :- 30.8.2022 Ishan

¶31

Digitally signed by ISHAN JAISWAL Date: 2022.09.01 09:45:06 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Azam Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Its 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajjan and Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Lucknow

Mohd, Mohseen Vs Union of India Thru, D.R.I Lucknow

Avadhesh Verma Vs State of U.P.

Tansen and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Shakeel Ahmad Warsi and Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Anr.

Kamlesh Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.