Allowed

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

Allahabad HC6 Jun 2023CRLA/10307/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal under the SC/ST Act, the Allahabad High Court set aside the Special Judge's order rejecting the appellant's second anticipatory bail application. Citing Article 21, jail overcrowding, and procedural irregularities, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions including absence from the country and surrendering the passport.

What did the court decide?

The Special Judge's order rejecting anticipatory bail is set aside; appellant is enlarged on anticipatory bail on personal bond with two sureties each.

Irfan Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:124823 Reserved on 19.05.2023 Delivered on 06.06.2023

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10307 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Irfan Ahmad Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another

¶4

Counsel for Appellant :- Anuruddh Chaturvedi,Shamasul Eslam Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Anuruddh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant; learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶7

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the impugned order dated 24.11.2022, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act Mau has rejected the Second Anticipatory bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 250 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)5, 3(1)f, 3(1)Da of SC/ST Act, Police Station Muhammadabad Gohna, District Mau.

¶8

There is allegation in the FIR that father of the informant belonging to scheduled caste, Suryadhar, died in the year 2016 and the name of the informant and his brothers were mutated in the revenue record on 10.4.2018. It is further alleged that the accused persons, who are residents of the same mohallah, were fully aware that the land in dispute is ancestral transferable land of Bhumidhari. Landholder belongs to scheduled caste and his three sons are equal partners in the same, being plot no.32 area 2.187 hectare, situated in village Baramadpur, Tehsil Muhammadabad Gohna, District Mau. The accused persons fabricated documents of sale regarding the land in dispute and after pasting old photographs of elder brother and father of the informant, they have got registered and unregistered documents executed without permission of the District Magistrate. The appellant alongwith 22 named accused persons, fabricated the documents. They are

¶9

purchasers and attesting witnesses of documents of the land in dispute. There are further allegations regarding commission of offence of threatening and commission of offences under provisions of SC/ST Act.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is not the purchaser or seller of any land nor has been received any money from any transaction. He is only marginal witness of an un-registered agreement to sell. He has wrongly been denied anticipatory bail by the court below. He has no criminal history to his credit except the implication in present case.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be fatal to the case at this juncture while considering the application of bail. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the appellant is released on bail, they will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶12

Anticipatory bail has wrongly been rejected by the court below without properly considering the material on record.

¶13

In view of above, the order of rejection of anticipatory bail passed by the court below dated 24.11.2022 is, hereby, set aside.

¶14

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; appellant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶15

In the event of arrest, the appellant, Irfan Ahmad , shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the appellant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

The appellant shall not leave the country during the pendency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶17

2 of 3

¶18

The appellant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶19

That the appellant 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;

¶20

The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicants.

¶21

In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶22

The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶23

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate/concerned court is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the appellant.

¶24

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶25

Order Date :- 06.06.2023

¶26

¶27

3 of 3

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SURENDAR SINGH NARANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irfan 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

Lalit Mohan Srivastava @ Pawan Srivastava and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Halku Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Fakruddin @ Fakaru Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun Kumar Alias Gaurav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Navase Vs State of U.P. and Another