Dismissed

Tausid Siddaqui @ Tausif and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Jul 2023ABAIL/7629/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by Tausid Siddaqui in a case involving charges of forgery and cheating. The Court held that no case for exercising discretion was made out.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

What the court decided

Tausid Siddaqui @ Tausif and Another Vs State of U.P… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:141133

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7629 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Tausid Siddaqui @ Tausif And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pravin Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Pravin Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.68 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station Jaitpura, District Varanasi.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case, in fact, no such incident has taken place. As per allegation, the applicant Tausid Ahmad Siddaqui got executed a Registration Certificate from the office of Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Tax over property (garage) of the informant. It is further alleged that after information about said registration, the husband of informant sent a letter alongwith complaint before Additional Commissioner Commercial Tax and sought cancellation of the said registration. It is further alleged that in respect of the said registration, a Civil Suit No.596 of 2015 has been filed against the husband of the informant. He further submits that an FIR has also been lodged against the informant and her son by one Rajesh Yadav being Case Crime No.116 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 506 IPC. He further submits that the fact is that a notice was served to Rajesh Yadav regarding amendment of rent agreement from Mutvalli Waqf which clearly shows that applicants have no concern with the property in dispute. The applicant no.1 has taken loan over the property A-39/377 A1 situated at Konia, Tehsil Sadar, Varanasi not on the property about which the informant alleges in the impugned FIR. The applicants have been implicated in the present case being the brother of other co-accused persons whose name is mentioned in the FIR. Prima facie no alleged offence is made out against the

¶9

applicants. The applicants are having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 30 of the affidavit. He further submits that applicants have apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicants are released on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant/victim vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant and has submitted that the allegations are very serious and keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, applicant is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶11

In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as mentioned above, taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicant as per prosecution case, gravity and nature of accusation, this Court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is made out in favour of applicant.

¶12

Accordingly, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 17.7.2023 Ajeet

¶14

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tausid Siddaqui @ Tausif and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Tausid Siddaqui @ Tausif 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narendra Dev Upadhyay and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Ahsan Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Kumar Mohan Vs State of U.P.

Suraj Pal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arvind Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another