Allowed

Mohd. Kamran Siddiqui v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Apr 2024/868/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Mohd. Kamran Siddiqui in a cheating case involving dishonoured cheques. Granting bail alongside a co-accused, the court held that the case appeared barred by Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and imposed conditions to prevent witness tampering and ensure appearance.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, subject to conditions regarding interrogation, non-tampering with evidence, and appearance.

Mohd. Kamran Siddiqui Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:33076

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 868 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Kamran Siddiqui Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Yogesh Kumar Mishra,Dharmendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Yogesh Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Punit Kumar Yadav, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

¶8

The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 249 of 2021, under Sections 406, 420 & 409 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Hussainganj, District Lucknow.

¶9

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 24.12.2021 against three persons, including the applicant, stating that the accused persons are partners of Safe Tag Markets Ltd, Quick Ace Marketing LLP & Zetcrest Digital LLP in which the informant and some other persons have made investment but the cheques given towards re-payment of the amount were dishonored by the bank.

¶10

In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application it has been contended that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶11

A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant disclosing his involvement in FIR No.954 of 2020 under Sections 420, 409, 504, 506 IPC at P.S.-Gomti Nagar, District-Lucknow and in 9 FIR No.90 of 2021 under Sections 406, 427 IPC at P.S.- Hazratganj, District- Lucknow. However, the applicant claims to have not received any summons regarding those cases.

¶12

A co-accused person namely, Mohd. Adeeb has been granted anticipatory bail in the present case by means of an order dated 19.10.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.2311 of 2023.

¶13

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the FIR has been lodged consequent to dishonor of cheques given by the partnership, in which the applicant is also a partner, towards repayment of money invested in it and it appears to be barred by the provisions contained in the Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act and that a similarly situated person has been granted anticipatory bail, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

¶14

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed . In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant- Mohd. Kamran Siddiqui before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on their 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 :- 27.4.2024 -Amit K-

¶22

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

Mohd. Kamran Siddiqui v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Kamran Siddiqui v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Janta Gas Service Napiyar Plaza Thru Sameer Kumar Rai Prop. Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Labour Vidhan Bhawan and Others

Smt. Savita Devi and Ors. Vs Additional Commissioner Lucknow Deivision Lko.and 3 Ors.

Manoj Kumar Verma Vs D.M Sultanpur and Ors.

Bhikhi Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy.Deptt. of Civil Supply and Food and4 Ors.

Gurcharan Singh and Others Vs State of U.P.through Collector Kheri and 3 Others

Juber @ Suhail Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another