Allowed

Rashid Khan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Dec 2022BAIL/35095/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Rashid Khan facing accused under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC. The judge granted bail citing unjustified delay in FIR registration and lack of opportunity to explain, subjecting the applicant to conditions preventing witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to non-interference with evidence and witnesses.

Rashid Khan Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 35095 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rashid Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Kant Shukla, Mohammad Nadeem,Vikrant Neeraj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mohd. Nadeem, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dinesh Kumar Srivastava, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

¶6

The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 502 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Kannauj, District Kannauj during pendency of the trial in the Court below.

¶7

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 20.07.2022 alleging that the applicant's firm M/s Rashid and Sons was holding licence as a whole seller from Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Kannauj but the licence was not renewed for the year 2022-23. Inspite of non renewal of the licence it was found that the applicant had sold away 300 quintal of potatoes on the strength of fake gate-pass.

¶8

In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant stating earlier, the applicant had been implicated in a case bearing Case Crime No. 271 of 2021 under Section 13 of Public Gambling Act, 1986, the proceedings whereof has been closed.

¶9

It has further been stated in the affidavit that on 19.07.2022, the Secretary of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti has issued a notice to the applicant directing him to given an explanation regarding the incident, which was served upon the applicant's brother but without giving any reasonable opportunity to the applicant to give his explanation. The F.I.R. has been lodged on the following day.

¶10

The applicant is languishing in jail since 21.07.2022.

¶11

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

¶12

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the fact that earlier the applicant was holding a licence of a whole sale dealer from the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti and that on 19.07.2022 a show cause notice was issued to the applicant and the F.I.R. has been lodged on 20.07.2022 without waiting for the applicant's reply; coupled with the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 21.07.2022, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶13

In light of the preceding discussion and without making any observation on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed .

¶14

Let the applicant Rashid Khan be released on bail in Case Crime No. 502 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Kannauj, District Kannauj on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below, subject to the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶17

(iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.

¶20

Order Date :- 19.12.2022

¶21

Jaswant

¶22

Digitally signed by JASWANT KUMAR Date: 2022.12.20 11:37:39 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rashid Khan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashid Khan 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

Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Subhash Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Rupak Chaubey Vs State of U.P.

Shama Alias Shyama Saroj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dileep Vs State of U.P.

Guddu Yadav Vs State of U.P.