Allowed

Mohd. Sarfaraj Ahamad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2024/550/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J., allowed the anticipatory bail application of Mohd. Sarfaraj Ahamad charged under various IPC sections. Considering lack of criminal antecedents and no flight risk, the court granted bail with bonds and standard conditions to appear for trial and investigation.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed. Applicant to be released on bail upon arrest by furnishing personal bond with two sureties subject to standard conditions.

Mohd. Sarfaraj Ahamad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:33180

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 550 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Sarfaraj Ahamad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Govt. Lko. And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Gauri Shankar Maurya,Saddam Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant who has filed the rejoinder affidavit which is taken on record and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

The instant application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No. 0014 of 2023 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 201, 204, 166, 120-B IPC, relating to police station S.I.T. District Lucknow.

¶9

The record indicates that a coordinate Bench of this Court by means of order dated 15.03.2024 had granted interim protection to the applicant and the same reads as under:-

¶10

"1. Learned A.G.A. informs that instructions in this case has not been furnished from the appropriate authority.

¶11

2. Learned counsel for the applicant on the other hand submits that the investigation of the case is pending and it is apprehended that the applicant may be arrested within next 02-03 days.

¶12

3. Having regard to the apprehension shown by learned counsel for the applicant, let this case be listed on 20.03.2024 in the list of fresh cases.

¶13

4. It is provided that till 20.03.2024, in the event of arrest of the applicantMohd. Sarfaraj Ahamad in the above-mentioned case, 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 Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/Investigating Officer subject to the condition that he will not leave the boundaries of the District Jaunpur where he is presenting living and would also cooperate in the investigation.

¶14

5. It is further clarified that this protection order without any specific order of this Court shall not extend beyond 20.03.2024."

¶15

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he is merely a typist in the District Waqf Office and he has been

¶16

posted at various districts during 07.02.1985 to 31.03.2021 and at his level of duty, he has no responsibility nor he was in any position to have created any documents in order to obtain unwarranted grants from the State-Government.

¶17

It is further urged that the applicant has roots in the society and he has not at flight risk. He further undertakes that he shall cooperate in the trial and investigation and in any case there is no incriminating material by virtue of which it can be said that the applicant was in a position to have influenced any decision to get the funds for the Madarasa.

¶18

Learned AGA on the basis of material in shape of case diary available with him has opposed the aforesaid the anticipatory bail and has also referred to Annexure CA-1 with the counter affidavit to indicate that upon investigation, it revealed that six Madaras were given grants who did not comply with the necessary norms and the employee responsible included the name of the present applicant, however, he could not dispute that the applicant was working as a Typist and the fact that all such decisions have to be taken by the Committee of Management.

¶19

Having considered the facts and circumstances and the submission made by respective parties including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the applicant including that he has no criminal history and no apprehension has been expressed that the applicant is at flight risk, hence, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant can be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶20

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Mohd. Sarfaraj Ahamad involved in the aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number, shall be released on bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court Concerned, with the conditions:-

¶21

(a) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;

¶22

(b) that the applicant 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 or tamper with the evidence;

¶23

¶24

(d) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶25

(e) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶26

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶27

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶28

Order Date :- 25.4.2024 Asheesh

¶29

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

Mohd. Sarfaraj Ahamad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Sarfaraj Ahamad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Govt. Lko. and 3 Others

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

Sajid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Amit Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Umesh Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Dheeraj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Devi Prasad Mishra vs M/S Nayara Energy Limited (Earlier Essar Oil Limited) Thru Auth. Signatory/ Managing Director

Nishant Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko