Allowed

Mohammad Rashid and Another v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jan 2023ABAIL/12271/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows an anticipatory bail application for two applicants accused of cheating and forgery for executing sale deeds. The court found their role as mere scribes insufficient for criminal liability and granted bail on a bond with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- and two sureties, subject to standard conditions including availability for interrogation and non-tampering with evidence.

Mohammad Rashid and Another Vs State of U.P and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12271 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mohammad Rashid And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicants for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 0453 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Etawah.

¶7

As per prosecution case, one Maqsood Ali held out himself as the real heir of deceased father of the informant and executed the sale deeds of 2 shops belonging to the informant inherited by him from his late father in favour of one Smt. Kasmeen; he also executed other sale deeds of 15 shops belonging to the informant/his late father in favour of Kahkasha Begum in the year 2016; it is stated in the FIR that the present applicants namely Mohd. Rashid and Manoj Kumar Rajpoot, who were the deed writers of the sale deeds in question scribed them without inquiring into the papers submitted by the parties; it is alleged that all the accused persons with the connivance of deed writers executed forged sale deed in favour of some persons without having any legal right to sell the same; the applicants stand chargesheeted by filing a supplementary charge sheet no. 10A/2021 on 29.06.2021.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicants that they have been assigned merely a role of deed writers and that it was not their responsibility to check upon the real owners and their right to sell the property; it is further contended that the deed writers do their job on the basis of the papers given to them; it is argued that they are absolutely innocent and they derived no benefit from the alleged transactions; they do not have any criminal history and that there is no possibility of them fleeing from process of courts of law.

¶9

In view of the facts and circumstances, especially, the fact that the only role assigned to the applicants is of being a scribe of the deeds in question, I find it a fit case to give benefit of

¶10

anticipatory bail to the applicants, hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed.

¶11

Let the applicants, Mohammad Rashid and Manoj Kumar Rajpoot involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- and two sureties each of the same amount before the court concerned subject to the conditions as below:-

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶20

Order Date :- 5.1.2023 #Vikram/-

¶21

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

Mohammad Rashid and Another v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Rashid and Another v. State of U.P and Another

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

Kalamuddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kismtun Vs State of U.P and Another

Sanjai Dixit Vs State of U.P.

Ummed Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Lalit Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Julfkar and Another Vs State of U.P.