Allowed

Mahfooz Alam v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2022ABAIL/4538/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court allowed the petitioner's request. The court found that a prima facie case for bail existed, noting the petitioner's lack of criminal antecedents and no credible evidence against him. Bail was granted subject to furnishing a bond and complying with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The application for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the furnishing of a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties and compliance with conditions regarding cooperation and non-interferenc

Mahfooz Alam Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4538 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mahfooz Alam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Zafar Abbas Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today, is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.604 of 2019, under Sections 416, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, IPC, Police Station - Civil Lines, District - Moradabad with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶8

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 above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. The first information report was lodged against six co-accused persons alleging that they were trying to take possession over the land of complainant illegally and they have prepared forged documents of land of complainant. Applicant is not named in the first information report and his involvement has been shown merely on the basis of statement of co-accused Mohd. Usman and except that, there is no other evidence against him. The applicant is neither the vendor nor vendee of the sale-deed of the disputed property and that applicant is also not witness of the disputed sale-deed. The role of applicant has been shown merely in conspiracy.

¶9

Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that no case is made out against applicant. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and he has never misused the liberty of interim bail. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. It was also submitted that 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.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Mahfooz Alam in the

¶15

aforesaid case crime, he 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 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 :- 16.9.2022 Neeraj

¶21

Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.09.17 12:39:52 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahfooz Alam v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahfooz Alam v. State of U.P.

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

Anirudh Gusain and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashutosh and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kapil Malik Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pappu Vs State of U.P.and Another

Vikash Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another