Dismissed

Mohammad Kayoom v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Allahabad HC18 Oct 2024/2134/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant, a retired employee, was accused of sitting on a bank chair during an auction. The court noted CCTV evidence implicated him unlike a different consumer, and denied parity. Bail was refused due to complicity and gravity of the offence.

What did the court decide?

The instant anticipatory bail application under section 438 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

Mohammad Kayoom Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:70366

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2134 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohammad Kayoom Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant bail application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 815 of 2022, under sections 409, 420 and 120-B of IPC, P.S.- Kotwali Nagar District - Sultanpur.

¶8

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the applicant is a retired employee and he went to the office of the Bank as there was open auction on the said date though, he has been seen sitting on the chair of Office of the Bank, but he was never involved in committing any offence.

¶9

From perusal of the record as well as the first information report, it transpires that the role of the present applicant is that he was found sitting on the chair of Office of the Bank though, he was already retired and after thorough investigation, it was found that he was involved in committing offence as is evident from the C.C.T.V. footage. This Court has taken note of fact that the role of the consumer namely, Manish Kumar is altogether different form the role of the present applicant and therefore, no parity can be granted.

¶10

In view of the aforesaid and looking into the complicity of the accused and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶11

Consequently, the instant anticipatory bail application is hereby dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 18.10.2024 Mayank

¶13

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohammad Kayoom v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Kayoom v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sachin Jaisawal vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Ram Kishor Tiwari @ Ram Kishor Dutt Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Smt. Asha Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. S.I.T. Lko

Ram Bachan Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vandana Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Praveen Kumar Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another