Allowed

Tauheed Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2023BAIL/16101/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under IPC Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471, the Allahabad High Court allowed the applicant's prayer. Despite the respondent citing forged documents regarding land classification, the Court held that discrepancies in government records are to be examined at trial and the applicant, who had no criminal history, could not be detained punitively, relying on Article 21.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to specific conditions regarding tampering, witness intimidation, and residence.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:201076

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16101 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Tauheed Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Shukla,Indra Jit Singh,Muqeem Ahmad,Raj Kumar Vaishya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Dubey,Vipin Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that instructions have been received and has no objection in case the bail application is heard on merits.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the First Information Report has been lodged by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on the ground that the applicant had filed complaint in respect of the land bearing Arazi No. 574/3 claiming the same land to be graveyard and in support of the same C.H. Form No. 23 was filed along with the complaint. During investigation it was found that the aforesaid was a forged document containing forged entry and as a result of the same First Information Report has been lodged.

¶9

3-A. Learned counsel for the applicant has produced the certified copy of C.H. Form No. 23 which was filed before the authority concerned. The certified copy is not a photostat but it is a handwritten copy. Learned counsel for the applicant has further produced the certified copy issued on 11.10.2023 to demonstrate that the aforesaid fact in the CH Form No. 23 also contains the entry with regard to the land being graveyard on the basis of basic year entry. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant had filed the certified copy whatever has been received from the authority concerned and even the certified copy received this year, the entry exists. He further submits that if the entries in the records of the Government have discrepancies, the same cannot be a ground to deny the bail to the applicant. The

¶10

applicant has no criminal history. Applicant is languishing in jail since 3.3.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial.

¶11

Sri Vipin Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party/aggrieved party submits that although the aforesaid entry being a graveyard was recorded, however, the same has been cancelled by the authority concerned on 30.7.2022. He further submits that once the entry has been cancelled then the applicant is not entitled to raise such an issue and the absence of such entry proves that the document is a forged document. He further submits that the document filed by the applicant does not contain the entry with regard to the land being a graveyard.

¶12

4-A. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case. He further submits that the disputed document were found to be forged and as such the First Information Report has been lodged.

¶13

Learned AGA for the State has not brought any fact or circumstances to indicate criminal history or antecedents of the applicant which would disentitle the applicant for Bail.

¶14

It is not the case of the State that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation or proceedings before the trial court.

¶15

The principle that Bail is a rule and Jail is an exception has been well recognised by Apex Court more specifically on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution. The said principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Satyendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 (10) SCC 51 . Learned AGA for the State has not shown any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

¶16

No material, facts or circumstances has been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like

¶18

have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶19

Learned AGA for the State has not shown any material or circumstances that the accused/applicant is not entitled to bail in larger interests of the public or State.

¶20

10-A. In the present case it is to be seen that the applicant claims that a certified copy has been issued to him which has been produced before this Court and the photocopy of certified copy was filed along with the complaint. Sri Vipin Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party has disputed the aforesaid document on the strength that the complaint was made against him and therefore such a document produce before the authority concerned was found to be forged.

¶21

10-B. In the present case, an enquiry is said to have been held by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Jaunpur where he has prima facie recorded that the copy of C.H. Form No.23 filed by the applicant does not match with the records. It is further noted that learned counsel for the applicant has produced before this Court the certified copy of the document filed along with complaint. He has also produced the certified copy issued recently on 11.10.2023, which is the same copy filed along with the complaint before the authority. It is not the case of the State that whether the certified copy issued by the authority or not. No details of the person who has issued certified copy has been provided. Once the certified copy is being issued by the authority concerned, in case, any discrepancy, applicant cannot be held liable more particularly when the same copy of C.H. Form No.23 issued on 11.10.2023 to the applicant. The dispute whether the certified copy was prepared by the applicant or was incorrectly issued by the authorities, who are entitle under law to issue the certified copy is required to be examined at the stage of trial and at this stage, applicant is already remained in jail since 3.3.2023 and the trial in the present case is pending, as such, applicant cannot be detained as punitive measures, which would not be in consonance with Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶22

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶23

Let the applicant- Tauheed Ahmad involved in Case Crime/F.I.R. No. 0174 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468

¶24

and 471 I.P.C., Police Station Kheta Sarai, District Jaunpur be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:-

¶25

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶26

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

¶27

iii. The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and/or the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶28

iv. 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.

¶29

v. 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.

¶30

vi. The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶31

vii. In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned about new residential address in writing.

¶32

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶33

Order Date :- 17.10.2023 VMA

¶34

Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tauheed Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tauheed Ahmad 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

Rajnu Vs State of U.P.

Ragib Vs State of U.P.

Wasim Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Deepak Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rajju Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Aasama Bano Vs State of U.P. and Another