Allowed

Maruf Anwar Hashmi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Affairs Sectt. Lko.

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2024/6057/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Allahabad High Court dismissed bail application challenged by State. Court observed pending civil suit, exonerations in prior cases, and police possession of disputed property. Granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail upon furnishing personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions.

Maruf Anwar Hashmi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75481

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 6057 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Maruf Anwar Hashmi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Affairs Sectt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Alok Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant (Maruf Anwar Hashmi) is languishing in jail since 01.04.2024 in Case Crime No.0041 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 186 & 434 I.P.C. and Section 2/3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station-Sadulla Nagar, District-Balrampur.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has falsely been implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

¶9

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that no date, time or place of offence, as alleged by the prosecution in the F.I.R., has been indicated. Sri Tripathi has also stated that one civil suit for the subject matter in question bearing Civil Suit No.629 of 2011 was filed by the applicant in the capacity of the Manager/ Mutwalli of Majar Sharif Baba Shaheed-E-Millat Abdul Kuddus Shah Rahmat Ullah-Alleh. However, presently he is not the Manager/ Mutwalli of the aforesaid Majar and he has nothing to do with the civil suit in question.

¶10

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that to the best of his information the aforesaid suit is not being persuaded by the plaintiff and has been rendered infructuous for all practical purposes inasmuch as the land in question is within the possession of the police station concerned and some Barracks etc. have been constructed on such land which is being utilized by the police personnel for couple of years.

¶11

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the offences wherein the charge-sheet has been filed are triable by the Magistrate and about eight months period have passed since the applicant is languishing in jail.

¶12

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that though the criminal history of 24 cases have been shown against the present applicant, in nine cases, the present applicant has been exonerated or final report has been filed or have been withdrawn by the State Government. Since the real brother of the present applicant was Ex.MLA, namely, Sri Arif Anwar Hashmi, who is the co-accused in the present case also, therefore, the present applicant has been implicated in so many similar and identical cases since 2019. This Court granted an interim order on 05.04.2024 in favour of his brother, Sri Arif Anwar Hashmi in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.2414 of 2024; Arif Anwar Hashmi vs. State of U.P. & others in the same crime case. The interim order dated 05.04.2024 reads as under:-

¶13

"Heard Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri V.K.Sahai, learned Additional Advocate General and Sri Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri S.N.Tilahari, learned A.G.A. and Dr V.K.Singh, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶14

The petitioner has assailed the FIR registered against him vide Case Crime No.0041 of 2024, under Sections 420, 468, 120-B, 186, 434 IPC and Sections 3/4 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, Police Station Sadulla Nagar, District Balrampur.

¶15

Learned A.G.A during the course of argument has apprised the Court that some offences have come to be added in the FIR during the intervening period and as on date the FIR No.0041 of 2024 stands registered for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 120-B, 186, 434, 467, 471 IPC and Sections 2/3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984.

¶16

Undisputedly the petitioner has been an Ex-MLA. Essentially the FIR has come to be lodged in relation to gata no.696, which according to the FIR, is recorded as government property and identified as police station to the extent of 2.16 acre (0.874 hectare of land). The same property to the extent of 0.073 hectare out of the aforesaid area has been in contest on behalf of Majar Shariff through its Mutwalli.

¶17

From the plain reading of the FIR, prima facie, we do not find a direct case of forgery or tempering of record by the petitioner who though being an ex-representative in the Legislative Assembly of the State, did not have a direct access to the revenue record. The matter in this regard is under investigation.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in view of an improbable role of the petitioner regarding any forgery relating to the land in dispute of which he is not a direct beneficiary and particularly when the civil proceedings are also going on the allegation of forgery or

¶19

causing damage to the property in question, levelled against the petitioner is wholly baseless and unfounded. He has further argued that the lodging of FIR is nothing but malafide exercise of power so as to malign the image of the petitioner.

¶20

On a careful consideration with respect to the orders giving rise to the civil proceedings, we gather that in none of the orders passed by the respective authorities there has been any allegation of forgery regarding the revenue record. Moreover, the revenue record being under the custody of State authorities is not open to forgery by a private person unless his access to the record was ensured by the authorities at any point of time or a person is otherwise a direct beneficiary of such forgery which may give rise to a sense of doubt against his involvement. Such is not the case at hand on plain reading of the FIR.

¶21

Let counter affidavit be filed by the State within two weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.

¶22

List after expiry of the aforesaid period.

¶23

Prima facie, we are satisfied that a case for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out.

¶24

Till the next date of listing, the petitioner shall not be arrested in Case Crime No.0041 of 2024 stands registered for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 120-B, 186, 434, 467, 471 IPC and Sections 2/3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station Sadulla Nagar, District Balrampur.

¶25

It is further provided that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation as and when called for."

¶26

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has explained the criminal history of the present applicant. The charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The offence wherein the charge-sheet has been filed is triable by the Magistrate. All the property in question are already in the possession of the State, to be more precise, within the possession of the police station concerned and on such land the construction of Barracks have been made which is being utilized by the police personnel for couple of years.. He undertakes on behalf of the present applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail, if so granted by this Court, and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings.

¶27

9. Sri Alok Kumar Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the present applicant by submitting that the present applicant is involved in similar type of cases with effect from 2019 and if he is released on bail he shall again indulge in such type of activities and shall influence the trial proceedings. So far as the interim order granted in favour of the brother of the present

¶28

applicant, namely, Sri Arif Anwar Hashmi is concerned, Sri Tiwari has stated that the aforesaid case is being persuaded by the State before the Division Bench, therefore, the present applicant may not be granted bail.

¶29

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record; considering the fact that though the criminal history of 24 cases have been shown against the present applicant, in nine cases, the present applicant has been exonerated or final report has been filed or have been withdrawn by the State Government; the fact that the real brother of the present applicant was Ex.MLA, namely, Sri Arif Anwar Hashmi, who is the co-accused in the present case also, this Court has granted an interim order on 05.04.2024 in favour of his brother, Sri Arif Anwar Hashmi in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.2414 of 2024; Arif Anwar Hashmi vs. State of U.P. & others in the same crime case; the offence is triable by the Magistrate; the property in question is within the possession of the police station concerned and some Barracks etc. have been constructed on such land which is being utilized by the police personnel for couple of years; the undertaking that the present applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings properly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I of the view that the present applicant may be released on bail.

¶30

11. Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶31

12. Let the applicant (Maruf Anwar Hashmi) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶32

(i) The the applicant shall mark his attendance once in a month at Police Station-Sadullah Nagar, District-Balrampur till conclusion of trial.

¶33

(ii) 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.

¶34

(iii) 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.

¶35

(iv) 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 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.

¶36

(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. 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.

¶37

13. Before parting with, it is expected that the trial shall be concluded with expedition, strictly in accordance with law, without adjourning the case for any unnecessary reason. Further, the learned trial court may take all coercive measures, as per law, if either of the parties do not co-operate in the trial proceedings properly.

¶38

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶39

Order Date :- 14.11.2024 Suresh/

¶40

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Maruf Anwar Hashmi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Affairs Sectt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruf Anwar Hashmi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Affairs Sectt. 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

Kaiser Jahan @ Munni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy Home Deptt. Lko.

Kalam Khan @ Mohd. Kalam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Seebu Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko

Vijay @ Jhabre Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Hime Lko and Another

Shivendra Pratap Singh @ Sani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Prem Shankar Upadhayay Vs Deputy Director Directorate of Ed. Lko. Zone Office Lko. (U.P.)