Allowed

Sadat Husain and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2023ABAIL/6817/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected anticipatory bail for applicant No.1 who already secured regular bail, but allowed it for applicant No.2 ('Safat Husain') in a cheating case until trial conclusion, subject to standard conditions including personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed for applicant No.2 until conclusion of trial subject to furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties and complying with specific conditions.

Sadat Husain and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:134068

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6817 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sadat Husain And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ankur Sharma,Nidhi Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

At the very outset, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that since applicant no.1 Sadat Husain has already obtained regular bail from the Court concerned, present anticipatory bail is not being pressed for him. Hence, present anticipatory bail qua applicant no.1 Sadat Husain is dismissed as not pressed.

¶7

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

¶8

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Safat Husain in connection with Complaint Case No. 410 of 2019 under sections 406, 506 IPC, P.S. Mahoba, District- Mahoba.

¶9

It is alleged in the complaint that the on pursuation of named accused persons for providing some employment accused persons took Rs.8 lacs from the complainant but no job was provided to him.

¶10

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false.It is further submitted that co-accused Sadat Husaid and Ravi Kumar have been granted regular bail by the Court concerned. It is further submitted that as per allegations of the complaint Rs.3 lacs in cash were given to applicant no.2 and his son Sadat Husain but there is no evidence of the same. It is further submitted that rest of the amount about Rs.7 lacs were said to be given through cheque but no money was transferred in the bank account of the present accused applicant. It is further submitted that there is no money deposited in favour of the accused applicant. It is further submitted that in the present matter application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved by

¶11

the complainant, which was treated as a complaint by the trial Court and the accused applicant was summoned to face the trial under Section 406, 506 I.P.C. It is further submitted that the offences alleged against the accused applicant are punishable with the imprisonment for a maximum period of seven years. It is also submitted that albeit it is mentioned in the anticipatory bail application rejection order passed by the Sessions Court, Mahoba that order regarding issuance of non-bailable warrant and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has already been passed into the matter but since during this period the applicant was taking the legal recourse, there is no bar for him to take recourse of anticipatory bail in this matter. It is further submitted that the applicant is an old man having no concern with the alleged offence. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that accused applicant played an active role in the commission of the alleged crime. It is further submitted that an order to issue process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been passed against him by the trial court on 10.01.2023 as mentioned in the anticipatory bail application rejection order, on this ground also he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶13

It is mentioned in the rejection order dated 3.6.2023 that the applicant was summoned by the trial Court to face the trial vide order dated 21.9.2021 and subsequently the said summoning order was challenged by way of criminal revision, which was disposed of on 2.2.2023 and during that period orders to issue non-bailable warrant and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were passed against the accused applicant on 14.04.2022 and 10.01.2023 respectively, which goes to show that during the pendency of criminal revision challenging the summoning order by the accused applicant the aforesaid punitive orders have been passed and in such circumstances there is no bar for the accused applicant to apply for anticipatory bail on ground that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been ordered to be issued against him.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

The anticipatory bail application is allowed in respect of applicant no.2 Safat Husain.

¶19

In the event of arrest of the applicant no.2 in the aforesaid complaint case, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his 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 :-

¶20

i. 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.

¶21

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

¶22

iii.The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶23

iv.The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by her before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate

¶25

application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicant in accordance with law.

¶26

Order Date :- 7.7.2023 Fhd

¶27

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

Sadat Husain and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadat Husain and Another 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

Jai Prakash and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sushant Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dileep Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chandra Bhan Vs State of U.P. and Another