Allowed

Faruk Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC7 Dec 2022BAIL/38759/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed for an accused in a fake sale deed case involving charges of cheating and forgery. The court noted the applicant witnessed the deed execution, another witness is on bail, no criminal history, and a civil cancellation suit is pending, granting bail without passing judgment on case merits.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties each with conditions against tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38759 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Faruk Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava,Md. Muzzammil.I.Qureshi,Mohd Sakib Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Kumar,Pankaj Kumar Asthana

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

1.Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Shashi Shekhar Tiwari, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

¶6

2.The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 233 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Saini, District Kaushambi.

¶7

3.The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of a first information report lodged on 06.08.2021 against four named accused persons, including the applicant, his father Afzal, mother Shahnaz Bano and one Nandlal Patel, alleging that the applicant's mother and co-accused Shahnaz Bano had got a sale deed with respect to the informant's land executed by putting up some imposter in his place. The applicant and co-accused Nandlal Patel are said to have witnessed the exeucution of the sale deed.

¶8

4.It has been averred in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the applicant is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in the case, he is having no previous criminal history and he is in jail since 14.07.2022. It has also been stated in the affidavit that there is no possibility of the applicant tampering with any evidence and in such circumstances, the applicant is entitled for bail. It is also stated in the affidavit that the applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and he will fully cooperate in the investigation.

¶9

5.A copy of the sale deed annexed with the affidavit indicates that the applicant had witnessed the execution of the sale deed and the sale consideration has been paid by the purchaser, coaccused Shahnaz Bano to the executor of the sale deed.

¶10

6.It has further been stated in the affidavit that the informant

¶11

has already filed a suit bearing Suit No. 811 of 2021 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaushambi for cancellation of sale deed and a perpetual injunction purporting the informant's injunction against the property.

¶12

7.The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the co-accused Nandlal Patel, who is also a witness of the execution of the sale deed has already been granted bail by means of an order dated 14.07.2022 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Kaushambi in Bail Application No. 476 of 2022.

¶13

8.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the prayer for grant of bail, but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶14

9.Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the fact that even as per the FIR allegations, some imposter has executed a sale deed in favour of the coaccused Shahnaz Bano; that the applicant and Nandlal Patel are said to have witnessed the execution of the sale deed; that the co-accused Nandlal Patel has already been granted bail; that the informant has already field a suit for cancellation of the sale deed and for a perpetual injunction, which suit is still pending and that the applicant has no criminal history, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail without making any observation on the merit of the case.

¶15

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

¶16

11.Let the applicant Faruk Ahmad be released on bail in Case Crime No. 233 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Saini, District Kaushambi, 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:-

¶17

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

¶18

(ii) The applicant will not influence any witness.

¶19

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

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make

¶21

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.

¶22

12.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.

¶23

Order Date :- 7.12.2022 Ashish Pd.

¶24

Digitally signed by ASHISH PRASAD Date: 2022.12.12 18:09:40 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Faruk Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faruk Ahmad 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akhilesh Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Sameer Vs State of U.P.

Junaid Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home

Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Patel Vs State of U.P.

Sanjayj Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.