Allowed

Sufiyana Begum v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Jul 2023ABAIL/1538/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Sufiyana Begum in a case involving sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC. The bench observed that arrest is not routine and granted bail with conditions pending the filing of a police report.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. with a personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties, till the filing of police report.

Sufiyana Begum Vs State of U.P. — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:146068

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1538 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sufiyana Begum Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Pravesh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Sufiyana Begum in Case Crime No.266 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC, Police Station - Kheta Sarai, District - Jaunpur.

¶8

It is alleged in the F.I.R. that by showing a forged death certificate of Abdul Kadus Khan, the father of the co-accused, Abdul Ahmad Khan, the present accused applicant obtained an agreement to sale by co-accused,Abdul Ahmad Khan whereas at the time of the said agreement, Abdul Kadus Khan was alive and had no right and title to move any agreement to sale in respect of the property in question but subsequently, on the basis of the aforesaid agreement, a registered sale deed was also got executed in her favour on 16.10.2021 by co-accused, Abdul Ahmad Khan. F.I.R. was lodged on 29.12.2022 and investigation started, which is still going on.

¶9

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and she has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against her. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

It is further submitted that earlier, criminal proceedings were started against the informant of the case by the present accused applicant but the same came to an end on account of compromise between the parties and subsequently, the present F.I.R. with mala

¶11

fide intention was filed by the informant against the present accused applicant. It is further submitted that Abdul Kadus Khan, the father of the co-accused, Abdul Ahmad Khan died prior to the agreement to sale dated 04.12.2018 and as a matter of fact, he died on 25.11.2018. It is further submitted that co-accused, Abdul Ahmad Khan, was the original owner of the property in question and no illegality was committed in obtaining an agreement to sale and subsequent sale by the applicant to co-accused, Abdul Ahmad Khan. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, the present accused applicant is cooperating. It is next submitted that she is a lady and having no criminal antecedents to her credit and as such, she is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶12

6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer.

¶13

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶14

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶15

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in the matter.

¶16

10. The application is allowed .

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicant, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶19

(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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if she has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶21

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant.

¶22

Order Date :- 21.7.2023 Shivangi

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sufiyana Begum v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sufiyana Begum 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

Lalit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chintu @ Mukesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amar@ Rauki Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Tanseer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P.