Dismissed

Firoz Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2023ABAIL/13209/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application, the applicant sought bail in a case involving obscene messages sent to a judicial officer. The court rejected the application, noting it was not a fit case for investigation powers and observing conflicting prior findings on complicity. No merits were decided.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application rejected; observations explicitly not to be treated as a comment on merits.

Firoz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13209 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Firoz Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Shashi Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Shashi Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the papers on record.

¶6

This application has been moved by the applicant- Firoz Ahmad , seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.236 of 2014, under sections- 509, 419, 420 I.P.C. and section- 67B Information Technology Act, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Etah.

¶7

As per prosecution case, a judicial officer of District- Etah received an obscene message on her official mobile number on 29.03.2014 at about 11:15 p.m.; she lodged an F.I.R. in the concerned police station; the matter was investigated upon; the statements of several witnesses were recorded and charge-sheet under sections- 419 and 420 I.P.C. was submitted against present applicant and also against co-accused Shreekant Upadhyay under sections- 419, 420 and 509 I.P.C. and section67B of I.T. Act; the cognizance has been taken and the case is pending before the court concerned.

¶8

It is contended on behalf of the applicant that he had no role to play in sending the alleged obscene message to the judicial officer and that the only evidence collected against him point towards the giving a sim to the co-accused Shreekant Upadhyay without following the Government guidelines, norms and the rules as applicable; he is absolutely innocent and had no criminal intention, therefore his liberty may be protected by grant of anticipatory bail.

¶9

The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by the learned A.G.A. putting before me following facts and circumstances :-

¶10

(i) The statement of witness Ganga Singh under section 161 Cr.P.C. showed that the alleged mobile number with a particular sim was given to the accused Shreekant Upadhyay by the

¶11

retailer in 2014 without verifying his name, identification etc. and without duly filling the prescribed form.

¶12

(ii) It was later on found that an objectionable message was sent by the co-accused Shreekant. It is argued that had the retailer/present applicant had no hands in gloves, he would have verified the identity of the applicant.

¶13

(iii) It is also argued that the charge-sheet against him has been filed under sections 419, 420 I.P.C. in the year 2015 and the he is avoiding his presence before the court concerned since long and that his conduct disentitles him from grant of anticipatory bail.

¶14

(iv) My attention has been drawn to the order passed in Application (under section 482 Cr.P.C.) No. 31014 of 2018 moved by the present applicant Firoz Ahmad for quashing the entire proceedings of the criminal case; the Court observed therein that there was no material to suggest that he had no complicity in the matter.

¶15

It may be noted that the anticipatory bail application is not a substitute for a regular bail and that being an extra-ordinary power, it should be exercised in suitable cases only, where indulgence by this Court is necessary to prevent abuse of process of Court and for furthering the ends of justice.

¶16

I considered the rival submission, nature of the accusations and all the attending facts and circumstances of the case. I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the anticipatory bail application is rejected .

¶17

However, any of the observations made herein shall not be taken as a comment on merits of the case by the court below and the court below shall be at liberty to form its own opinion at any stage of the case.

¶18

Order Date :- 10.1.2023 Saif

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Firoz Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firoz 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

Sakir Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mahendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamal Singh Vs State of U.P.

Chandan Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Arbaz Vs State of U.P. and Another