Allowed

Rais Ahmad @ Rahees v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2024/34/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted anticipatory bail to applicant despite non-compliance with a previous order to appear for bail, citing the nature of the complaint case and Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties each in like amount, subject to conditions to appear within 20 days and cooperate in trial.

Rais Ahmad @ Rahees Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:2643

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 34 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Rais Ahmad @ Rahees Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lucknow And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Muballi Gussalam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application has been moved by applicant- Rais Ahmad @ Rahees for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.05390 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 and 120-B IPC, lodged at Police Station Wazirganj, District Lucknow.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of false implication and the applicant has been assigned the role of being instrumental in showing a plot of land to informant, which was allegedly sold to him by co-accused, Ravi Kumar Shukla but later on it was revealed that the same plot had earlier been sold by him to some other person. It is further submitted that even if the whole story of the complainant, as disclosed in the complaint as well as in the statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 CrPC is believed as it is, the role of the applicant would not travel beyond showing the impugned plot to the informant.

¶9

It is further submitted that the applicant is neither beneficiary nor he stood as witness of any transaction or document and, therefore, there is no culpability of the applicant in the instant case. It is also submitted that the applicant is not having any criminal history and there is no apprehension that after being released on anticipatory bail, he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. It is further submitted that the applicant along with other co-accused persons had earlier approached this Court by filing Application U/s 482 No.2892 of 2022 and vide order dated 27.05.2022 he was directed to appear before the trial Court and to move an application for bail with a further direction that the same shall be disposed of in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble

¶10

Supreme Court reported in 2021 SCC Onlilne SC941( Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I through Director), but he could not appear before trial Court and now he is apprehending arrest under coercive process issued against him, thus, his liberty be protected, moreso, when it is a complaint case.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposes the request made by the applicant and it appears to be an admitted situation that the applicant has not appeared before the trial Court in compliance of the order passed by the coordinate Bench and, therefore, he is not entitled for any relief/discretion.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it appears to be truthful, having regard to the aforesaid order dated 27.05.2022 passed on an application moved by the applicant under Section 482 CrPC along with others that the applicant did not appear before the trial Court for obtaining regular bail, as was directed by the coordinate Bench of this Court. The reason for the same inferred from the record the applicant is alleged to have committed the offences which are punishable with more than 7 years imprisonment and, thus, he may be having apprehension that if he would surrender and move an application for regular bail, the same may take sometime and, in the meantime, he may be lodged in prison. It is evident that the applicant has been summoned by the trial Court on the basis of a complaint filed by complainant and veracity of uncrossed statements of the complainant and his witnesses are yet to be tested on the touchstone of crossexamination which is yet to be done, having regard to the procedure provided under Chapter-XV of the CrPC. The case of the applicant is, thus, distinguishable from the case wherein a charge-sheet is submitted after thorough investigation as instant is a case instituted on a complaint and the trial Court only after satisfying itself of sufficient grounds have summoned him to face trial. In this regard the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujrat Vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in MANU/SC/0139/2019 may be recalled wherein a distinction has been highlighted between the cases instituted on complaint and FIR. Though the applicant has failed to appear before the trial Court in view of the directions given by the coordinate Bench, but the same may not be the sole basis of rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶13

Thus, in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773, Aman Preet Singh Vs. C.B.I. through Director : 2021 SCC Online SC 941, Siddharth v. State of UP : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615 and

¶14

Mahdoom Bava Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, arising of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.376 of 2023 , the instant anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicant - Rais Ahmad @ Rahees is finally disposed of with a direction that in the even of arrest of the applicant within 20 days from today or till the applicant appears/surrenders before the trial Court and moves application for regular bail under Section 437/439, as the case may be, whichever is earlier, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions:-

¶15

(i). The applicant, if not arrested earlier, shall appear before the trial court within 20 days from today and cooperate in the trial and shall not seek any adjournment when the prosecution witness would be in attendance.

¶16

(ii). In case of further investigation or re-investigation the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and make himself available as and when required by the Investigating officer of the case, even for the recovery of any fact.

¶17

(iii). 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.

¶18

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

¶19

(v). The applicant 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.

¶20

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 bail and shall proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

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 trial proceedings in any manner.

¶22

Order Date :- 9.1.2024MVS/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rais Ahmad @ Rahees v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rais Ahmad @ Rahees v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lucknow 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rohit Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Babu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Add. Chief Secy. Home Govt. Lko.

Paragi Lal Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Applicant a (Minor) Thru. His Mother/Natural Guardian B vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Angad Nishad vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lucknow

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. vs Alok Verma and Another