Allowed

Mohammad Ahmad Raza v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Aug 2023ABAIL/1789/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application allowed for an applicant facing allegations of forgery and contract fraud. Court granted bail on personal bond with sureties and standard conditions, citing Supreme Court precedents while refraining from commenting on trial merits.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial on personal bond with two sureties.

Mohammad Ahmad Raza Vs State of U.P. and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:155467

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1789 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mohammad Ahmad Raza Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shamsuddin Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. Heard Sri Shamsuddin Ahmad learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Satya Prakash, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 111 of 2022, under Sections 420, 380, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Prem Nagar, District Bareilly, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwtih named accused persons namely, Utkarsh, Vivek Parasari and Nilotpal Parasari are stated to have taken a contract from the Tata Project Limited Company on the basis of forged documents and on the basis of stolen documents of the company of the informant and are later stated to have not complied with the conditions of the contract. On seeing that they would be implicated in the case, they are stated to have closed down the said work and run away. It is next stated that the main allegations are against Nilotpal Parasari. The co-accused persons Vivek Parasari and Utkarsh have been exonerated by the police and the closure report has been filed with respect to them, which falsifies the prosecution story.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has the apprehension of his arrest. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution.

¶9

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. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall

¶10

cooperate with trial.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.

¶12

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶13

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Mohammad Ahmad Raza involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶15

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

¶16

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;

¶17

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

¶18

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶22

Order Date :- 3.8.2023\Shalini

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohammad Ahmad Raza v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Ahmad Raza 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Munesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anurag Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pwan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanni Vs State of U.P.

Bheem Sain Vs State of U.P. and Another