Allowed

Mohammed Furkan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC28 Sept 2022ABAIL/8940/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant, Mohammed Furkan, was accused of cheating and forgery. The court found he deserves bail due to lack of criminal antecedents and falsity of allegations, subject to strict conditions including cooperation with investigation. Bail granted until filing of police report.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted until submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., upon furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/ with two sureties each of like amount.

Mohammed Furkan Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8940 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mohammed Furkan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Tirpathi,Manoj Kumar Tripathi

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ram Mohit Yadav, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the records.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.87 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B, 406, 504 and 506 IPC at Police Station- Jani, District Meerut with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have come to the shop of the applicant and purchased a old bullet motorcycle from the co-accused person Imran for a consideration of Rs.79,500/-.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. The money has been transferred to the account of co-accused person Imran through UPI transactions and it is falsely alleged that Rs.7,000/cash has been provided to the applicant. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant runs a bona fide shop and has nothing to do with the said offence. The forgery committed, if any, can be assigned to the co-accused person Imran. In whose account the said money has been transferred in four transactions. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. Learned counsel has further stated that the investigation is going on and the charge-sheet has not yet been filed. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that the applicant has co-operated in the investigation and undertakes that he will cooperate in the investigation in future also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but could not dispute the fact that there are no criminal antecedents of the applicant.

¶11

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant deserves to be granted anticipatory bail in connection with the aforesaid case.

¶12

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is disposed of with following directions:-

¶13

(A) In the event of arrest of the applicant- Mohammed Furkan involved in aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on his/her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned;

¶14

(B) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;

¶15

(C) 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; and

¶16

(D) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶17

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶18

Order Date :- 28.9.2022 Ravi Kant

¶19

Digitally signed by RAVI KANT Date: 2022.09.28 18:22:07 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohammed Furkan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Furkan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mamta Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Vs State of U.P and 2 Others

Hazi Jameel Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Manbharan Ram Rajbhar Vs State of U.P.