Allowed

Nazir Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2023ABAIL/13434/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal miscellaneous anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court allowed the application, directing the release of the applicant on anticipatory bail subject to bonding and specific conditions to prevent interference with evidence, tampering, or intimidation.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial.

Nazir Ahmad Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:235039

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13434 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Nazir Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Durgesh Kumar Singh,Rishabh Narain Singh,Shiv Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Durgesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.283 of 2023 registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC at Police Station- Qasimabad, District Ghazipur with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the co-accused person Nikhat Parveen is stated to have got a job in Madarsa Madarstul Qasimabad, District Ghazipur by forging her intermediate mark-sheet. The applicant is stated to be the Manager of the said institution and had forwarded the documents without verification.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is a retired police officer and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The co-accused person Nikhat Parveen has been enlarged on regular bail by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Court No.4, Ghaziabad vide order dated 18.11.2023. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. The occurrence is of the year 2006 and the applicant was the Manager in the office and he has not misused his office.

¶11

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the

¶12

investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶15

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Nazir Ahmad be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

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

¶17

(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;

¶18

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

¶19

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶23

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶24

Order Date :- 12.12.2023 Ravi Kant

¶25

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nazir Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazir 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jasram and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pawan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sonu @ Sunil Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Rajendra Kumar Goel Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Achhey Lal and Another Vs State of U.P.and 2 Others