Mohd. Shareef and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:170153

Court No. - 73

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6689 of 2023

Applicant :- Mohd. Shareef And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashfaq Ahmed Ansari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicants- 1. Mohd. Shareef 2. Zulfiqar Khan in connection with Case Crime No. 316 of 2020, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Mawana, District- Meerut.

¶8

The house of the informant shafik was sold by way of registered sale deed by co-accused Mohd. Hameed as an imposter in favour of the present applicants on 17.6.2020 and when this fact came to the knowledge of the informant an FIR was lodged on 8.7.2020 and investigation started, which has been culminated into a charge sheet.

¶9

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. After investigation charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. It is further submitted that the present applicants are the bona fide purchasers of the house and under a bona fide belief that the house in question was being sold by the real owner after payment of requisite consideration amount they have purchased the house in question. It is further submitted that earlier a Cr.Misc. Writ Petition No. 10820 of 2020 was preferred by the applicants wherein they were granted protection by this Court till filing of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. vide order dated 13.10.2020 and the same liberty has not been misused by the applicants. It is further submitted that the dispute relates to purely civil nature and a civil suit in respect of the cancellation of the sale deed and declaration is pending before the competent civil Court wherein the present

¶10

applicants are contesting. It is further submitted that the applicant no.1 has no criminal history and criminal history of applicant no.2 has been explained through supplementary affidavit. Now after filing of charge sheet no custodial interrogation is required in the matter. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that earlier an Application U/S 482 No. 15595 of 2021 was filed by the applicants but therein they were granted no relief and the said application was found devoid of merits and was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 4.4.2022.

¶12

It appears that the dispute is of civil in nature and civil suit between the parties is already pending.

¶13

Although the charge sheet has been submitted in this matter but in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶14

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶15

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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.

¶16

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants 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 applicants till conclusion of trial in the matter.

¶17

The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.

¶18

In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶19

i. The applicants 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

¶20

ii. The applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶21

iii.The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶22

iv.The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicants in accordance with law.

¶24

Order Date :- 23.8.2023 Fhd

¶25

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Shareef and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Shareef and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basheel Khan @ Baseer Khan Vs State of U.P.

Nempal Vs State of U.P.

Niranjan Kumar @ Vikas Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Rajkumari Vs State of U.P.

Rajul Vs State of U.P.

Sudama Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another