Allowed

Aas Mohammad v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Oct 2023BAIL/26514/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a bail application filed by Aas Mohammad under Sections 420, 467, and 468 IPC. Relying on R.D. Upadhyay, the court observed a trial delay of over a year without charge framing and granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed subject to execution of a personal bond and two sureties in like amount.

Aas Mohammad Vs State of U.P. — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:196952

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26514 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Aas Mohammad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Jeet Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶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 as per allegations in the first information report, it is alleged that the applicant went to the bank and presented the forged cheque for encashment. Applicant was found in the C.C.T.V. footage. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is languishing in jail for more than 1 year i.e. from 10.10.2022. The applicant has no criminal history and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment passed by Apex Court in R.D. Upadhyay vs. State of A.P. and others, 1996 (3) SCC 422 .

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail but does not dispute factual matrix of the case, as well as, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of R.D. Upadhyay (supra) .

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment passed by Apex Court in R.D. Upadhyay Vs. State of A.P. and others, 1996 (3) SCC 422 . As per learned counsel for the applicant the applicant is aged about 59 years.

¶11

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the trial is not proceedings in the matter and the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court

¶12

in R.D. Upadhyaym (supra) .

¶13

Learned A.G.A. does not dispute the factual matrix of the case as well as the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of R.D. Upadhyay (supra) .

¶14

It is to be seen that the applicant is in jail for more than one year. The applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 10.10.2022.

¶15

A perusal of the ordersheet of the trial court would demonstrate that the applicant is regularly appearing before the trial court. However, till date no charge has been framed and general dates regarding presence of the applicant is being given. It is the duty of the prosecution to prosecute the accused person at the earliest. The delay defeat justice. The Apex Court in the case of R.D. Upadhyay (supra) has directed release on bail of the accused person who are charged with cheating after detention of more than one year. In this respect, paragraph 3 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereunder:-

¶16

"3. So far as the cases regarding attempt of murder are concerned, we direct that the cases which are pending for more than 2 years, the undertrials shall be released on bail forthwith to the satisfaction of the respective trial courts. Persons facing trial for Kidnapping, Theft, Cheating, Arms Act, Counterfeiting, Customs, under Section 326 I.P.C., under Section 324 I.P.C., Riots and under Section 354 I.P.C. who are in jail for a period of more than one year, shall be released on bail forthwith to the satisfaction of the trial courts concerned. There may be cases where the undertrial persons may not be in a position to furnish sureties etc. In those cases, the trial courts may be in a position to furnish sureties etc. In those cases, the trial courts may consider -- keeping in view of the facts of each case especially the period spent in jail -- releasing them on bail by furnishing personal bonds."

¶17

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of R.D. Upadhyay (supra) , 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.

¶18

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.

¶19

Let the applicant Aas Mohammad involved in Case Crime No. 396 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468 IPC, Police Station Noida Sector-24, District Gautam Budh Nagar, 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:-

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

Order Date :- 11.10.2023 S.Prakash

¶29

Digitally signed by :- SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aas Mohammad v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aas Mohammad 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asif Vs State of U.P.

Nazim @ Inga Vs State of U.P.

Bali Mohammad Vs State of U.P.

Kanhaiya @ Rahul Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Laxmi Tiwari Vs State of U.P.

Janvesh Vs State of U.P.