Allowed

Shamshad Husain v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2024ABAIL/11092/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application filed by Shamshad Husain in a cheating case punishable under Section 420 IPC. Court granted bail relying on Supreme Court guidelines for offences up to 7 years imprisonment, finding no material to suggest tampering with witnesses or evidence.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; anticipatory bail granted on furnishing bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties.

Shamshad Husain vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:179612

¶2

Court No. - 33

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11092 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shamshad Husain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Dutt Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Shamshad Husain in Case Crime No.357 of 2019, under Section 420 I.P.C., Police Station Bilhari, District -Moradabad.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant under Section 420 I.P.C. which is punishable upto 7 years. He submits that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773 , the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State could not dispute the fact that the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is punishable upto 7 years. He does not dispute the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil's (supra) .

¶10

The Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773 has laid down the guidelines with regard to enlargement of an accused on bail. The guidelines provided category/type of offences. Once of the category being Category-A are offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less. The Supreme Court in paragraph-3 of the aforesaid judgment has laid down the guidelines that after the filing of the charge sheet/cognizance ordinary the summons are required to be issued permitting the appearance of the accused through Lawyer and the bail applications of the accused persons on appearance are to be

¶11

decided without the accused being taken into custody or by granting interim bail. A perusal of the aforesaid guidelines would demonstrate that the liberty of an individual has been recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in term of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶12

It is further to be noted that as per Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also during investigation the liberty of an individual is protected in respect of an offence where the maximum punishment provided is upto 7 years.

¶13

It is not the case of the opposite party that the applicant was arrested for offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. during investigation and it is also not the case of the opposite party for that the applicant has not co-operated in the investigation. Once no apprehension has been raised with regard to the conduct of the applicant and the applicant has been charge-sheeted and summoned in respect of offence in which punishment provided is upto 7 years, then in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil's (supra) , the liberty of the individual is required to be protected.

¶14

It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicant for relief of anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

Learned Counsel for opposite parties has placed criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has explained criminal history in paragraph 20 of the affidavit accompanying this application.

¶16

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶17

In view of the above, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail in respect of offence described in para 1 of the present order. In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory

¶18

bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶19

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police office as and when required.

¶20

(ii) 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 office.

¶21

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court concerned.

¶22

(iv) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned/Investigating Officer about new residential address in writing.

¶23

(v) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required.

¶24

(vi) The applicant shall maintain law and order.

¶25

(vii) The applicant shall at the time of execution of the bond, furnish his address and mobile number to investigating officer, and the court concerned.

¶26

(viii) The applicant shall regularly remain present during the trial, and cooperate with the Court to complete the trial for the above offences.

¶27

(ix) Non presence of the applicant or his counsel before the court concerned shall be construed as violation of the present order and the court concerned would be at liberty to take coercive measures in accordance with law.

¶28

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶29

With the directions made above, the anticipatory bail application stands allowed.

¶30

Order Date :- 14.11.2024 Bhaskar

¶31

Digitally signed by :- BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shamshad Husain v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamshad Husain v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khalil Ahmad and Another vs State of Up and Another

Board of Foreign Mission vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Bijnesh Kumar Singh vs State of Up and Another

Shivakant Trivedi and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Mamta Behra Alias Shabnam vs State of U.P. and Another

Chhotelal and 5 Others vs State of Up and 10 Others