Mohd. Shahid Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:51388

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7987 of 2022 Applicant :- Mohd. Shahid Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Shekhar Singh Yadav,Anjani Kumar Saini,Jitendra Kumar Singh,O.P. Tiwari,Pallavi Vatsala Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Heard.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 293 of 2020, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C, Police Station Shahabad, District Hardoi, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶7

Learned counsel for applicant submitted that FIR, in issue, has been lodged by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sahabad against three persons. In nutshell, the allegations made in the FIR relate to sanction of KCC Loan under the scheme of Kisan Credit Card. As per allegations made in the FIR, the entries in revenue records were manipulated and thereafter the applicant applied for KCC Loan under the aforesaid scheme and without following due procedure as prescribed for sanctioning of loan, the loan was sanctioned in favour of the applicant. As per FIR, entries in the revenue records relates to Khata No.186 and the original tenure holder is Ravindra S/o Pyare and the entry in the revenue records in favour of the applicant is forged entry.

¶8

It is also stated that applicant has not committed any offence and the real facts are to the effects that after death of his father, for getting loan to start some business the applicant asked his brother Sajid to provide Rs. 50,000/- as loan then his brother told that he would arrange the loan from bank and thereafter, after few days he took him before one Varunesh Chandra Mishra, Advocate who had taken the

¶9

bio-data of the applicant and obtained signatures on some papers and thereafter Rs. 50,000/- was provided to the applicant by the bank officials.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that the applicant is in jail for more than three years and taking note of entire facts of the case particularly the period of incarceration and the law in this regard and various pronouncements including Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Criminal Appeal No. 693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.3610 of 2020) , wherein the Apex Court has held that if there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and the accused applicant is in jail for a substantial period then the period of incarceration may be considered as a fresh ground.

¶11

In addition, learned counsel for applicant submitted that protection was given by this Court to one of the Revenue Authorities namely Harishankar Yadav, whose name find place in the F.I.R. and protection was also extended by this Court to the Advocate, who provided the Non-Encumbrance Certificate to the Bank.

¶12

He also stated that the co-accused Naveen Awasthi has already been released on bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A., on the basis of counter affidavit, has opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

¶14

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record, as also the fact that protection was given by this Court to one of revenue authorities namely Harishankar Yadav and also to the counsel who provide the Non-Encumbrance Certificate to the Bank as well as totality of fact and circumstances and also the period of incarceration i.e. about three years, and without expressing

¶15

any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Let applicant- Mohd. Shahid Khan, be released on bail in aforesaid Case Crime, on his furnishing personal bond to the satisfaction of the court concerned forthwith. Applicant is also directed to furnish two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶17

(1) Applicant will not try to influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence of the case or otherwise misuse the liberty of bail.

¶18

(2) Applicant will fully cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present in the Court.

¶19

(3) Applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶20

(4) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶21

(5) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.

¶22

(6) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶23

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶24

Order Date :- 29.7.2024/Mohit Singh/-

¶25

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

Mohd. Shahid Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Shahid Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jumman Khan and 15 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 6 Others

Anuj Pandey and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Mohd. Imran Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. A.C.S. / Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Shahruf and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Mohammad Istiyak @ Istiyak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Vandana Yadav and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another