Allowed

Firoz Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2024/3895/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 406, 506, 120-B IPC over an alleged failed promise to secure a work order for Rs. 6 lakhs. Court noted settlement, return of Rs. 3 lakhs, parity with co-accused granted bail, and released the applicant on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Firoz Ahmad released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two reliable sureties, subject to conditions.

Firoz Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29071

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3895 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Firoz Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilendra Kumar Goswami,Neeraj Singh

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J .

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶9

The instant application has been filed seeking bail in Case Crime No. 971 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 406, 506, 120-B IPC, relating to police station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda.

¶10

The submission is that as per version contained in the FIR, it is alleged that the complainant had paid a sum of 6 lacs for getting a work order for LED lights in Gram Panchayat and Zila Panchayat in Gonda. The applicant along with co-accused had assured the said work will be allotted to the complainant but the same did not materialize and upon making a request for return the said sum, the applicant and co-accused failed to do so, in which context the FIR was lodged.

¶11

It is submitted that the parties have already entered into a settlement, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.5 to the application and it is further stated that the sum of Rs.3 lacs, which allegedly paid to the applicant has already been returned to the complainant and in paragraph 14 of the affidavit, it has been stated that the said amount has been encashed by the complainant. It is further pointed out that the remaining sum is deposited and the complainant has already moved an application for return of the said money. In the aforesaid circumstances, the applicant, who is in jail since 24.02.2024, may be granted bail.

¶12

At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is seeking parity with the co-accused namely Sahil Siddiqui @ Ateeq Ahmad who has been granted bail by this Court by means of the order dated 08.04.2024 passed in

¶13

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3888 of 2024.

¶14

The submission is that the applicant is ready to follow the conditions as prescribed under the law and there is no chance of tampering with the evidence or influence any witness. It is urged that applicant has no criminal history. In these facts and circumstances, it is prayed that the applicant may also be provided the benefit of bail.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. on the basis of material available with him in shape of case diary has opposed the prayer for bail, however, could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶16

Considering the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record as well as considering the nature of allegations and accusation against the applicant, the severity of the punishment if convicted and the period of incarceration as well as the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶17

Let the applicant Firoz Ahmad involved in Case Crime No. 971 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 406, 506, 120-B IPC, relating to police station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶18

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶19

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when 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.

¶20

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the

¶22

court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

(iv) 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. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant 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 proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶25

O rder Date :- 9.4.2024 Asheesh

¶26

Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Firoz Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firoz Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Kamal Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neelam Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Vikaram @ Khuddi Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and 3 Others

Harivansh Kumar @ Harivansh Shukla and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Dheeraj Saxena Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shivendra Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.