Allowed

Dr. Parvez Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC29 May 2023BAIL/22714/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application where the applicant, a doctor, was accused of cheating. Although financial transactions existed, the applicant was not in the FIR or the first inquiry statement. The court emphasized Article 21 and granted bail with strict conditions to ensure attendance and prevent adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to strict conditions regarding presence in court, absence of adjournments, and potential consequences of misuse.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:120354

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22714 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Dr. Parvez Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kundan Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bhawesh Pratap Singh,Chetan Prakash

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Gopal Swaroop Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kundan Rai, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Chetan Prakash, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶8

Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 0415 of 2022, U/S 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 506 IPC, Police Station George Town, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

As per prosecution story, the named accused person Azhar Anis Usmani in collusion with some unknown person, is stated to have duped the informant to the tune of Rs. 1,95,00,000/- on the pretext of getting a contract of railway scrap. Despite frantic efforts, neither the money was returned nor the contract was allotted to the informant.

¶10

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with a view to cause unnecessary harassment and to victimize him. Learned Senior Counsel has vehemently argued at Bar that the the applicant is not named in the FIR. The name of the applicant has come up in the supplementary statement of the informant, whereby he has allayed bald allegations against him stating that the applicant and other members of his family were also involved in the said forgery committed with him. Learned counsel has also stated that there is no overt act has been assigned to the applicant. The applicant is an employee in the Railway department and is a doctor by profession.

¶11

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. It is further stated that there is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 29.4.2023. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there are several agreements entered into between the named accused person Azhar Anis Usmani and the applicant of getting the money more than doubled within a span of six months, which indicates malice towards the applicant also. The applicant being a Government employee, is not supposed to be involved in the said transaction with the co-accused person. The amount of money flow between the co-accused person Azhar Anis Usmani and the applicant indicates malice. Learned counsel has next stated that in the supplementary statement of informant, the name of the applicant has been categorically mentioned.

¶13

In rebuttal, learned Senior Counsel has stated that the said transactions between the co-accused person and the applicant does not make him an accused as Rs. 15 lakhs has been transferred to the account of the applicant by the co-accused person of which Rs. 3 lakhs have been returned back. Furthermore, he has stated that the applicant was not on the post responsible for getting the scrap, rather he is the medical practitioner and is posted on the said post in the Railway department.

¶14

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence on record regarding complicity of the accused, larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is not named in the FIR and even the first statement of the informant does not indicate the name of the applicant, 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.

¶15

Let the applicant- Dr. Parvez Ahmad who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶16

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek

¶17

any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶18

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶19

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶20

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶23

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶24

Order Date :- 29.5.2023 Shalini

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dr. Parvez Ahmad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Parvez Ahmad v. State of U.P.

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

Vijay Lakshmi Singh Vs State of U.P.

Durgesh Tiwari Vs State of U.P. . and Another

Rajkumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P.

Shamshad Vs State of U.P.

Sushil Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Veer Singh Chauhan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another