Allowed

Syyed Moazzam Ali v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2023ABAIL/9917/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Syyed Moazzam Ali in a case involving cheating and forgery. The court, noting his lack of criminal history, granted bail subject to standard conditions including surety, non-interference with witnesses, and availability for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Release of the accused on anticipatory bail on furnishing personal and two sureties each, subject to specific conditions regarding interrogation, interference with witnesses, travel, and appearance.

Syyed Moazzam Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another — Money Laundering | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:177327

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9917 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Syyed Moazzam Ali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Abdul Mazeed,Mohd. Naseer Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

No one is present on behalf of the applicant to press the anticipatory bail application. Sri A.K. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. is present.

¶8

The lawyers are abstaining from work today. This Court has itself perused the material available on record.

¶9

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.178 of 2023, registered under Sections 420, 489B, 489C and 489D IPC at Police Station- C.B. Ganj, District Bareilly with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶10

As per prosecution story, two persons, namely, Rahmat Ali and Raees Khan, were arrested by the police alongwith counterfeit notes of various denominations carrying the value of Rs.25,000/- and 35,000/- respectively on 07.07.2023. The applicant is stated to have run away from the scene of occurrence.

¶11

A bare perusal of the FIR indicates that the name of the applicant has come up on the statement of the arrested coaccused persons, which is not admissible under Indian Evidence Act.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but could not dispute the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit.

¶13

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be

¶14

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.

¶15

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Syyed Moazzam Ali 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

(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;

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

Order Date :- 13.9.2023 Ravi Kant

¶25

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶26

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

Syyed Moazzam Ali v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syyed Moazzam Ali 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akshay and Another Vs State of U.P.

Subhash Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Govardhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neha Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Akhilesh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajkumar Vs State of U.P.