Allowed

Moin Uddin @ Bablu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2023ABAIL/2381/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Moin Uddin @ Bablu in a cheating case under Section 438 Cr.P.C., enlarging him on bail with sureties and specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with personal and two sureties; conditions include availability for interrogation, no tampering with evidence, no leaving India without permission, and court appearance on fi

Moin Uddin @ Bablu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:132799

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2381 of 2023 Applicant :- Moin Uddin @ Bablu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri Santosh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, 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.38 of 2023, registered under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC at Police StationMauaima, District Prayagraj with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have introduced the informant to Asha Devi and her husband, and thereby, they are stated to have entered into a registered agreement to sale and total of Rs.2,20,000/- is stated to have been taken by the applicant and other co-accused persons.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that as per the agreement to sale only Rs.20,000/- in cash and Rs.1 lakh has been given through cheque to Smt. Asha Devi, the copy of the agreement has been annexed as Annexure No.3 to the affidavit. Learned counsel has stated that as such the story narrated in the FIR stands falsified. The applicant has been made marginal witness in the present agreement to sale and in other agreement to sale. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence. He is simply marginal witness in the said two agreements. The applicant is a known person to the informant. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit. 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. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant

¶11

undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Moin Uddin @ Bablu 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:-

¶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 the previous permission of the court;

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

[Krishan Pahal, J.]

¶24

Order Date :- 5.7.2023/Vikas

¶25

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Moin Uddin @ Bablu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moin Uddin @ Bablu 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

Shivlal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Bharose Sharma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sudhir Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Suman Vs State of U.P.

Kallu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P.