Allowed

Mohd. Musafir Ansari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Allahabad HC17 May 2024/651/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a criminal appeal against a bail rejection order. The court set aside the impugned order and granted bail to the appellant, finding him to be a likely bona fide purchaser, alongside other factors like release of co-accused.

What did the court decide?

The appellant, Mohd. Musafir Ansari, was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties of like amount, subject to eight conditions.

Mohd. Musafir Ansari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37847

¶2

Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 651 of 2022 Appellant :- Mohd. Musafir Ansari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sunil Dixit,Satish Chandra Kashish,Varun Chandra

¶3

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shiv Pal Singh,Sudhaker Prakash

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Affidavit filed by the appellant in Court today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the order dated 05.03.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 1107 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 223 of 2021, under Sections - 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 448 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)da and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Wazirganj, District - Lucknow.

¶8

While pressing the instant application for bail and assailing the order dated 05.03.2022, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant is a bonafide purchaser of the property owned by the informant as this property was purchased through the registered sale deed after paying the amount of sale consideration i.e. Rs. 1,29,00,000/- and this amount was paid through RTGS, Cheque, Demand Draft and cash.

¶9

In continuation, to show the bonafide of the appellant, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the specific averment made in Paragraph 18 to the affidavit filed in support of bail application and the statement of joint bank account in the name of informant and her son namely Akash Deep Verma, who has also been implicated in the present case and has been released on

¶10

bail in terms of order dated 23.02.2023 passed in CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 2750 of 2022, which are not record as Annexure Nos. 2 and 3 to the Rejoinder Affidavit dated 22.09.2023.

¶11

Based upon the aforesaid, he further submitted that it is apparent that Demand Draft No. 883702 of Rs. 98,00,000/-, which was taken on loan, was credited in the join bank account in the name of the informant/Manjulata and her son namely Akash Deep Verma (coaccused) on 13.11.2017.

¶12

On being asked at this stage, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. could not dispute the aforesaid statement based upon the documents on record.

¶13

It is further submitted that other co-accused namely Sabir Ali Ansari and Vivek Mishra have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order(s) dated 25.04.2022 and 03.12.2022 passed in CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 622 of 2022 and CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1909 of 2022 , respectively. Copies of bail order of co-accused namely Sabir Ali Ansari and Vivek Mishra are on record as Annexure No. 3 to the Rejoinder Affidavit dated 22.09.2023.

¶14

It is further submitted that the appellant is in jail since 02.02.2022 and criminal history of two cases of the appellant has been explained in Paragraph 36 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, which has not been disputed, and as such, taking note of the entire facts including that the appellant is a bonafide purchaser of the property as also that the trial is not proceeding in terms of Section 309 Cr.P.C. and the period of incarceration, the appellant is entitled to be released on bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶15

Opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. stated that the appellant is the main culprit.

¶16

In continuation, they submitted that the informant (owner of the property) was in jail on the date of execution and registration of the sale deed and by producing an unknown lady, the appellant got executed and registered the sale deed in his favour and therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶17

In response, the appellant's counsel stated that the appellant was not aware, at relevant point of time, that the deed is being executed by an imposter and this fact can be inferred from the fact that Rs.98,00,000/- was credited in the joint bank account in the name of informant and her son namely Akash Deep Verma(co-accused).

¶18

Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and perused the records.

¶19

Taking note of the aforesaid it prima facie appears that the appellant is bonafide purchaser and taking note of the same as also considering the fact that the co-accused namely Sabir Ali Ansari, Vivek Mishra and Akash Deep (son of the informant) as also the fact that criminal history of two cases of the appellant has been explained in Paragraph 36 to the affidavit filed in support of the bail application and he has been languishing in jail since 02.02.2022, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 05.03.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 1107 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 223 of 2021, under Sections - 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 448 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)r and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Wazirganj, District - Lucknow is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed.

¶20

Let the appellant Mohd. Musafir Ansari be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶21

(i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶22

(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶23

(iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶24

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶25

(v) The appellant 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.

¶26

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶27

(vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶28

(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶29

In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶30

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶31

Order Date :- 17.5.2024/Mohit Singh/-

¶32

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

Mohd. Musafir Ansari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Musafir Ansari v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Similar cases

Suraj Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Ashutosh Narayan Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Ilahi Vs State of U.P.

Jagat Pal and Ors. Vs Deputy Director Consolidation Lakhimpur Kheri and Ors.

Ramendra Singh @ Shankar Bhole Vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lucknow and Another

Kamlesh Prasad Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another