Allowed

Hafiz Mehraj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2023ABAIL/2819/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by Hafiz Mehraj in a cheating case. The application was granted with conditions regarding appearance, non-interference, and cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant forthwith on anticipatory bail subject to furnishing personal and two sureties and adhering to specified conditions.

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

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2819 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Hafiz Mehraj Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sadrul Islam Jafri,Ambreen Masroor,Gufran Ahmad Khan,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Subhash Chandra Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

List has been revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Sadrul Islam Jafri, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Subhash Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the informant and Sri R.M. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Criminal Case No.13869 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.399 of 2021, registered under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 IPC at Police StationKharkhauda, District Meerut with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have duped the first informant to the tune of Rs.8,13,618/- through three transactions, which is stated to have been transferred to the account of one Waseem. The applicant is stated to have directed the informant to transfer it to the account of Waseem and not to his account and he has got the said amount withdrawn from the account of Waseem. The applicant has neither supplied the promised buffalo meat nor he has returned the said amount transferred to the account of Waseem.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. He is the proprietor of M.K. Enterprise and if there was any business transaction to be executed between the two, the same should have been transferred to the account of the firm or to the personal account of the applicant, which has not been done. The said amount, if any, has been transferred to Waseem. Learned counsel has further stated that the Waseem and the informant are hand in glove with each other and have cooked up a story to falsely implicate the applicant. The matter is of civil in nature. The informant has converted the case of money suit to a criminal

¶10

matter. 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 criminal history of one case assigned to the applicant has been explained in para 26 of the affidavit annexed to the anticipatory bail application. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant 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.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that already the final report (chargesheet) has been submitted against the applicant and the court was pleased to issue bailable warrant against him. The applicant is deliberately avoiding the court.

¶12

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.

¶13

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Hafiz Mehraj 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

(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;

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 19.4.2023 Ravi Kant

¶24

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

Hafiz Mehraj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hafiz Mehraj 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

Shubham Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Furkan Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Manchanda Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kalim Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Imran Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Reeta Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Another