Allowed

Mohammad Khalid v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2022ABAIL/3249/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Mohammad Khalid in a cheatting and forgery matter. The court held that a case for bail was made out given the accused's cooperation, lack of antecedents, and the mechanical nature of the charge-sheet against him.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties, subject to specific conditions of appearance and conduct.

Mohammad Khalid Vs State of U.P. and Another — Money Laundering | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3249 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mohammad Khalid Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Dutt Tiwari,Ranvijay Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in case no. 154 of 2019, Case Crime no. 264 of 2018, under Sections 420, 467, 409, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Police Station Hayat Nagar, District Sambhal with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the abovementioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. According to prosecution version, the District Minority Welfare Officer, Sambhal has lodged the first information report alleging that in the inquiry, it was found that certain Music Schools are being run in district Sambhal (Bheem Nagar) on the basis of forged approval and that in the year 2017-18 they have misused the scholarship funds granted under the scheme of Post Matric Scholarship. Learned counsel submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case during investigation without there being any credible evidence against him. There was no allegation against the applicant in the statement of informant, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It was submitted that co-accused Ribhu Agarwal, who was computer operator, is responsible for forwarding the names of students for the purpose of scholarship. The applicant has no concern with any cheating or fraud. Applicant has cooperated during investigation and his statement was recorded and he has stated that computer operator co-accused Ribhu Agarwal was responsible for forwarding the data of students. The investigation has not been conducted properly and that charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant in a

¶8

mechanical manner. During departmental inquiry, it was found that applicant has no motive or intention to embezzle any public fund. At the relevant time, applicant was working on the post of Minority Welfare Officer and he has never appointed said co-accused Ribhu Agarwal in his office. The alleged forged appointment letter of co-accused Ribhu Agarwal was not issued by the applicant. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that there is no credible evidence against the applicant. It was further submitted that investigation is complete and charge-sheet has already been filed. The applicant undertakes to co-operate during trial and he would appear as and when required by the Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the trial and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

¶10

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶11

In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶12

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Mohammad Khalid involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/court

¶14

concerned with the following conditions :-

¶15

The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

2.The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

3.The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶19

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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicant in accordance with law.

¶21

Order Date :- 14.11.2022/Anand

¶22

Digitally signed by ANAND VERMA Date: 2022.11.17 13:04:57 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohammad Khalid v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Khalid v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Smt. Savita Devi Vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Sachin Vs State of Up Though Principal Secretary U.P.

Smt. Kusma Vs State of U.P.

Mudit Saxena Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raman Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others