Allowed

Syed Mohammad Taj Alam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Allahabad HC14 May 2024/708/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to Syed Mohammad Taj Alam in a case involving bribery and cheating allegations. The applicant was not arrested during investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and parity was shown with a co-accused granted bail by the same court.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties subject to conditions regarding availability for interrogation, not tampering, leaving India, appearing in court, and not

Syed Mohammad Taj Alam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36994

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 708 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Syed Mohammad Taj Alam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko Counsel for Applicant :- Saima Khan,Jyoti Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Saima Khan, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Puneet Kumar Yadav, learned State Counsel and perused the records.

¶7

The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 132 of 2017, under Sections 406, 420, 506 I.P.C. and Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, registered at Police Station Aashiyana, District Lucknow.

¶8

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 15.03.2017 against four persons including the applicant, stating that the co-accused Imran Alam, who is the applicant's brother and who claimed himself to be a journalist, had offered the informant to get his son employed with the help of his brother Muhid Alam, who was working as an accountant in District Jail, Bahraich. The informant alleged that he had paid Rs. 2 lakhs for securing employment for his son but neither he was employed nor was the money refunded.

¶9

In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application it has been contended that the applicant is innocent, he has falsely been implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history.

¶10

After investigation, the police has submitted a charge-sheet against all the accused persons on 06.05.2022 and the applicant was not arrested during investigation.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the coaccused, namely, Syed Mohammad Muhid Alam, having similar role to that of present applicant, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 15.12.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 2896 of 2023, therefore, the present applicant is also entitled to be granted anticipatory bail on the ground of parity.

¶12

The learned Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that from the allegations levelled in the F.I.R it appears that it was the informant himself who tried to secure public employment for his son by payment of bribe and he has lodged the F.I.R after having being failed in this endeavor; that the applicant was not arrested during investigation and he cooperated with the investigation, after which a charge sheet has already been submitted, coupled with the fact that co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail and without making any observations which may affect the outcome of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶14

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed . In the event of arrest/appearance of applicant- Syed Mohammad Taj Alam before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:

¶15

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

¶16

(ii) 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;

¶17

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court'

¶18

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

¶19

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶21

Order Date :- 14.5.2024 kkv/

¶22

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

Syed Mohammad Taj Alam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Mohammad Taj Alam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil 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

Shyamu Alias Lala Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Ram Harish Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supply, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 5 Others

Vijay Bahadur Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue,Lko. and 6 Others

Ajeet Kumar Gupta @ Ajeet Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

M/S Aravali Infra Developers,Bahraich Thru. Proprietor Farhan Shavez Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry of Finance, Lko. and 2 Others

Reshma and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Urban Development, Lucknow and Others