Allowed

Tabassum (Smt.) and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2022ABAIL/4303/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court allowed a Criminal Miscellaneous Anticipatory Bail application. The court granted bail to applicant Tabassum under Section 438 Cr.P.C. during the pendency of proceedings for charges under Sections 419, 420, 406, 352, and 506 IPC, holding that a case for bail is made out as the accused is innocent and no coercive process has been issued.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount.

Tabassum (Smt.) and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4303 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Tabassum (Smt.) And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Mohammed Jafer Husain,Deepak Singh Patel,Syed Wajid Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to press the anticipatory bail application of application no.2 Mukhtar Hasan @ Shoib, thus, the same may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh application.

¶6

In view of aforesaid, the instant application for anticipatory bail of applicant no.2 Mukhtar Hasan @ Shoib is dismissed as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant no.1, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 20 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 352, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Fatehpur, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶9

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant no.1 that applicant no.1 Tabassum is innocent and she has an apprehension that she may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. It has further been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far. The allegation against the applicant is that total amount of Rs. 11,70,000/- was given to co-accused

¶10

Mukhtar Hasan @ Shoib and his family members by the complainant and his family members but only an amount of Rs. 58,000/- was returned back. Learned counsel argued that the matter in dispute is purely civil in nature and dispute relates to business transaction. So far applicant no.1 Tabassum is concerned, only an amount of Rs. 1 lakhs was shown to be transferred into her account. The applicant no. 1 is a lady. It was submitted that applicant no.1 has been falsely implicated merely because she is mother of co-accused Mukhtar Hasan @ Shoib. The applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or 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 during investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

In the instant case, considering the settled principles 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.

¶14

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶15

In the event of arrest of the applicant no.1 Tabassum (Smt.) in the aforesaid case crime, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her 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 below concerned with the following conditions :-

¶16

(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police as and when required;

¶17

(ii) 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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶18

(iii) the applicant would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶19

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶20

Order Date :- 29.8.2022 A. Tripathi

¶21

Digitally signed by AKHILESH TRIPATHI Date: 2022.08.30 12:28:57 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tabassum (Smt.) and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tabassum (Smt.) and Another 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

Satish Shanker Shukla Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Jakhotia Vs State of U.P.and Another

Akhanad Pratap Upadhyay and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramvilas Kushwaha vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepak Vs State of U.P

Brajmohan Yadav Alias Brij Mohan Yadav Vs State of U.P.