Allowed

Raju Alias Allimulla and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC31 May 2023/1344/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to two applicants in a criminal case involving cheating and forgery allegations, citing the Supreme Court's principles on anticipatory bail. The court imposed standard conditions including availability for interrogation and restrictions on leaving India.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail was granted to the applicants during trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each under specific conditions.

Raju Alias Allimulla and Another Vs State of U.P… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:39283

¶2

Court No. - 31

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1344 of 2023 Applicant :- Raju Alias Allimulla And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shaquiel Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 104 of 2019, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Nanpara, District Bahraich with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. As per prosecution case, the applicants are neither seller nor purchaser of plot in question and the plot was sold in favour of the co-accused Mohd. Zubair. It is further submitted that the applicants are marginal witness of the alleged sale deed. The applicants are not beneficiary to the alleged sale deed. The applicants have no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicants so far .It is submitted that applicants undertake to co-operate during trial. It has been stated that in case, the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶8

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

¶9

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.

¶10

In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law

¶11

regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants 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.

¶12

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶13

Let the applicants Raju @ Allimulla and Nafees Ahmad shall be released on anticipatory bail during trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶14

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

(ii) The applicants 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 any police officer;

¶16

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court and if they have passports, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶17

In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned shall be at liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶18

Order Date :- 31.5.2023 sailesh

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SAILESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raju Alias Allimulla and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Alias Allimulla and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dept. Lko. 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

Smt. Nirmala Tripathi Vs the State of U.P and Anr.

Vivek @ Rahul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ravi Dixit @ Shubham Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Sectt. U.P Govt. Lko

Vikas Singh @ Pappu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Baboo @ Dilshad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Ashu @ Ashutosh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.