Nafees Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:2670

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Nafees Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Vishwas Shukla,Ram Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed by the applicant is taken on record.

¶8

Learned AGA informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including upto date case diary and the charge sheet in this case has already been submitted way back on 6.7.2012 and the process of non-bailable warrants have been issued against the applicant.

¶9

Heard Shri Vishwas Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶10

The present anticipatory bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Nafees Ahmad in Case Crime No. 229 of 2005, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC & Section 13(1) (c) (d) P.C. Act, 1988, Police Station Hargaon, District Sitapur, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

¶11

Learned counsel for the accused-applicants while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. Even if the case of the prosecution as has been investigated is taken on its face it will emerge that the role of entering forged Amal Daramad / entry has been assigned to the Lekhpal Vipin Kumar Srivastava and the role of the instant applicant is only to the tune that when the forged entry was made in the revenue record, he (applicant) was the custodian / Lekhpal.

¶12

It is vehemently submitted that it has been specifically concluded by the Investigation Officer that the forged entry/ Amal Daramad in the revenue record was made by Vipin Kumar Srivastava, thus presence or absence of requite intention or connivance may only be determined during the

¶13

course of trial and it appears that charge sheet has been filed on the basis of insufficient evidence.

¶14

It is further submitted that during the course of investigation the applicant had approached this Court by filing a Misc. Bench No. 5173 of 2023 and vide order dated 17.7.2014 he was granted protection from arrest and as he cooperated in the investigation he was not arrested and charge sheet has filed and as he was not expecting the Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet he was not aware the submission of the same and since no process of any kind has been served upon him he was in knowledge about the pendency of the case.

¶15

It is further submitted that as soon he became aware of the pendnecy of the court he has approached the special court/ trial court, however, his request for anticipatory bail has been rejected.

¶16

It is further submitted that since the charge sheet has been submitted and custodian interrogation of the applicant would now be not required and he is not having any criminal history and is ready to cooperate in the investigation, the facility of anticipatory bail is granted to him in view of the laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S ushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020)5 SCC 1.

¶17

Learned AGA on the other hand submits that the applicant is an accused of committing heinous offence, therefore he is not entitled for any protection.

¶18

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that the matter is pertaining to the year 2012 and sufficient material appears to be available before this court the instant anticipatory bail application may be finally disposed of.

¶19

Perusal of the record would reveal that it appears to be a admitted case to the parties that forged Amal Daramad/ entry has not been made by this applicant and his role is only to the tune that at the relevant point of time he was custodian/ Lekhpal and when the record was in his custody the same was manipulated by co-accused Vipin Kumar Srivastava. He is not having any criminal history. Charge sheet in this case has already been filed without arresting him as his liberty was protected under the order of Division Bench of this Court. Thus in the considered opinion of this Court having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra : (2011) 1 SCC 694, Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1

¶20

and in Nathu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others , 2021(6) SCC 64, MANU/SC/0360/2021, the facility of anticipatory bail may be extended to the instant applicant. In result the anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicant- Nafees Ahmad is hereby allowed and it is provided that in the event of arrest of the applicant in the above noted case under any process of the trial or on his appearance/ surrender before the trial court within 20 days from today i.e. on or before 30.01.2024, whichever is earlier, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶21

The applicant if not arrested earlier, shall surrender before the trial court within 20 days from today i.e. on or before 30.01.2024 and will cooperate in the trial.

¶22

The applicant shall not make any attempt to influence the prosecution witnesses and will also not commit any crime during his release on anticipatory bail.

¶23

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and especially when the prosecution witnesses are present in court.

¶24

If in the opinion of the trial court default of any of the condition placed above is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of the bail and shall proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶25

It is clarified that all the observations contained in this order are only for disposal of this anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the proceedings before the trial court in any manner.

¶26

Order Date :- 10.1.2024 Muk

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nafees Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nafees Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Afsar Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Arvind Kumar Nahar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Prabhu Prasad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home. Lko.

Ramesh Kumar Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Dinesh Dutt Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Parmeshwari Dayal Pateriya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Lko. and Another