Allowed

Jamaluddin v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2023ABAIL/11887/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by Jamaluddin against an FIR alleging corruption. Citing Siddharam Mhetre, the court held that a case for bail is made out, directing release on personal bond with two sureties subject to standard conditions until the chargesheet is submitted.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted until submission of chargesheet on personal bond with two sureties.

Jamaluddin Vs State of U.P. — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11887 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Jamaluddin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- R.P.S. Chauhan,Ashok Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinay Kumar Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vinay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the first informant, Sri O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0384 of 2022, under Sections 166-A, 167, 409 IPC, Police Station Gauri Bazar, District Deoria.

¶7

As per prosecution case, the then Gram Pradhan-Jamaluddin (present applicant) and Gram Panchayat Sachiv-Chandan Kumar were found to be involved in misappropriation of government money to the tune of Rs. 33 lakhs and Rs. 60,000/-

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that an FIR has been lodged against him without a proper inquiry as is clear from the preliminary inquiry conducted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer; my attention has been drawn towards the contents of the inquiry report. On the basis whereof it is argued that the inquiry is quite superficial and without substance; the inquiry report itself says that the matter needs to be investigated upon to draw any conclusion; it is further contended that the applicant being Gram Pradhan of the District has been falsely implicated due to local politics and factionalism in the village.

¶9

The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by the first informant and learned AGA for the State pointing towards the fact that with regard to the construction etc. the spot inspection was done and it was found that against 128 lights, for which the payment was made, only 60 lights were found on the spot. In this regard, it is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the payment of only 60 lights was done and were found on the spot and the inquiry report on the basis whereof the FIR has been lodged was inadequate and incomplete

¶10

In case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by the 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.

¶11

In the instant case, I considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case. In my view, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶12

Let the applicant, Jamaluddin involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on anticipatory bail till submission of chargesheet on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each of the same amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the conditions as below:-

¶13

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶14

(ii) that 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶15

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶16

(iv) that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶17

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶18

(vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶20

10. It is made clear that observations made herein shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion at any stage of the case based on material before him.

¶21

Order Date :- 15.2.2023 #Vikram/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jamaluddin v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamaluddin 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

Ram Tej Yadav Vs State of U.P and Another

Himanshu Trivedi Vs State of U.P.

Rakesh Harijan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Smt. Indraprabha Chaudhary and Another Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramesh Chandra Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Another