Allowed

Tareekh Jafari@ Saiyad Tarif Jafri v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 May 2023ABAIL/5188/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Tareekh Jafari facing charges of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court found the allegations vague and the applicant falsely implicated, granting bail subject to seven standard conditions including appearance in court and non-interference with witnesses, relying on Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with conditions to make himself available for interrogation, not tamp with evidence, not leave India, and appear in trial court.

Tareekh Jafari@ Saiyad Tarif Jafri Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:106989

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5188 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Tareekh Jafari@ Saiyad Tarif Jafri Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Pratap Singh,Vijay Gopal,Virendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Lalit Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Virendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prakash Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Lalit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Rohit Dubey, 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.138 of 2023, registered under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 IPC at Police Station- Shahganj, District Agra with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have duped the informant of Rs.2.5 lakhs on the pretext that he shall get him profit in his business for running the said shop by magical remedies.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is nothing on record to suggest that any money has been transferred to the account of the applicant. The allegations are vague. 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 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 A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the

¶12

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- Tareekh Jafari@ Saiyad Tarif Jafri 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 :- 17.5.2023 Ravi Kant

¶25

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

Tareekh Jafari@ Saiyad Tarif Jafri v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tareekh Jafari@ Saiyad Tarif Jafri 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

Imran Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chetan Swaroop Alias Chetanya Swaroop Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Kumar Bind Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Khurshid Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Iqbal Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shri Ram Chauhan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another