Allowed

Sayed Farhat Hussain v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2023ABAIL/13269/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted anticipatory bail to Sayed Farhat Hussain in a cheating and forgery case, citing false implication and delayed FIR. Conditions include cooperation with IO, surrendering passport, and appearing on specific dates.

What did the court decide?

Enlarged on anticipatory bail on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and specific conditions regarding cooperation and appearance.

Sayed Farhat Hussain Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:232783

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13269 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sayed Farhat Hussain Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.268 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and 506 IPC, Police Station Nakur, District Saharanpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant in fact no such incident has taken place as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant is neither vendee nor vendor. The applicant is only a marginal witness in the sale deed dated 25.06.2019 and no suit for cancellation is filed by the informant. The incident is alleged to have taken place o 25.06.2019 whereas the impugned FIR has been lodge on 22.07.2023 i.e. about four years delayed without any plausible explanation. He further submits that the dispute is purely civil in nature but has given criminal colour. Prima facie no alleged offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is having no previous criminal history. He further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case

¶11

and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98 . The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶12

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Sayed Farhat Hussain, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.

¶14

(ii) 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.

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶17

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶18

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98 .

¶19

(vii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶20

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at

¶21

liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.

¶23

Order Date :- 8.12.2023 Ajeet

¶24

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sayed Farhat Hussain v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayed Farhat Hussain v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Shamshad Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Mahmood Akhtar Vs State of U.P.

Devesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vishal Lohia Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pooran Singh Saini Vs State of U.P.

Sarves Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another