Allowed

Mohd. Kaleem Shakoor and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. (Home), Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2024ABAIL/142/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an anticipatory bail application for applicants accused under Sections 409, 420, 120B IPC. Citing the passage of 12 years without arrest and Supreme Court precedents, the court found no necessity for arrest and granted bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions of cooperation with investigation and presence in court.

Mohd. Kaleem Shakoor and Another vs State of U.P. Thru… — Money Laundering | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:10057

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 142 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Kaleem Shakoor And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. (Home), Govt. Of U.P. Lucknow And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rishabh Tripathi,Maneesh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Learned AGA informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including upto date case diary and investigation of this case is still pending.

¶7

Heard Shri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present application has been moved by the accusedapplicants- Mohd. Kaleem Shakoor and Mohd. Yunus Ansari in Case Crime No. 1120 of 2012, under Sections 409,419,420,467,468,471,120B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Balrampur, with the prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail as they are apprehending arrest in the abovementioned case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The applicants were not having any connection either with the office of District Minority Welfare or with any Madarsa to which grant is shown to have illegally transferred and after thorough inquiry the First Information Report of this case has been lodged, however, without there being any specific allegation pertaining to the misappropriation of money only on account of suspicion and presumption the FIR has been lodged against the applicants also.

¶10

It is vehemently submitted that it may not be denied that Aziz Ahmad who has transferred the money in the bank account

¶11

of the applicants was associated with the Madarsa, in which the grant is shown to have been illegally transferred and if the allegations of the FIR taken on its face, it would be revealed that it was only the then District Minority Welfare Officer and clerk, namely, Shameem Ahmad may be held responsible for transferring the grant to the Madarsa, which was not entitled and at the most the office bearers of the Madarsa, who has received the said illegal grant but by any stretch of imagination the vicarious liability may not be extended to the applicants, who are only related to the Manager of Madarasa wherein the grant is shown to have been illegally transferred.

¶12

It is also submitted that the main co-accused of the alleged crime, namely, Islam Ahmad Abbasi, the then District Minority Welfare Officer has been granted interim anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 20.12.2023 passed in CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. 2958 of 2023, while the clerk of the District Minority Welfare Officer, Balrampur, namely, Shameem Ahmad has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, vide order dated 31.1.2024 passed in CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3022 of 2023. The applicants are ready to cooperate in the investigation and will remain present before the Investigating Officer as and when their presence would be required. There is no apprehension that after being granted facility of anticipatory bail, applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. They are not having any criminal history.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants on the ground that huge amount of money has been transferred in the bank account of the applicants.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that the FIR of the instant case was lodged in the year 2012 and for 12 long years the investigation is pending for the reasons best known to the Investigating officer. However, it is also evident that the accused persons of this crime might have been cooperating with the Investigating Officer as in these 12 long years the

¶15

applicants or any other accused persons have not been arrested and the necessity of arrest appears to be pertaining to misinterpretation of Section 170 Cr.P.C. as there were misconception that for filing charge sheet or report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. the arrest of the accused persons is must and the said Section 170 Cr.P.C. has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharth v. State of UP : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615; in terms that in all the cases the arrest of the accused persons is not must for submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. unless the same is not warranted by any specific circumstance related to the facts and circumstances of that case. It is not in doubt that the Minority Welfare Officer, namely, Islam Ahmad Abbasi has been granted interim anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and Shamim, who was clerk of District Minority Welfare Office, Balrampur, whose role is much graver than the role of the instant applicant have been granted the facility of Anticipatory bail. Thus I do not find any reason as to why the same facility may not be extended to the applicants when they are/ were cooperating with the Investigating Officer.

¶16

Thus having regard to the reasons mentioned above and keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors., MANU/SC/1021/2010, Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. , MANU/SC/0100/2020, Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. v. State of Punjab, MANU/SC/0215/1980 : 1980 (2) SCC 565, and Nathu Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others: (2021) 6 SCC 64, in the considered opinion of this court, having regard to the material/evidence available against the applicants, the applicants may be provided protection from arrest.

¶17

Thus the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is provided that in the event of arrest of the applicants- Mohd. Kaleem Shakoor and Mohd. Yunus Ansari , in the above-mentioned case under any process of the trial court or on their appearance/surrender before the trial court within 20 days from today, i.e. on or before 21.2.2024 whichever is earlier, they shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on their furnishing personal bonds with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial

¶18

Court concerned/investigating officer/arresting police officer, subject to the following conditions:-

¶19

(1) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation or even for discovery of any fact by a police officer as and when required, in case further investigation is directed.

¶20

(2) The applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶21

(3) The applicants shall not leave the country concerned without the previous permission of the Court.

¶22

Applicants shall remain present before the trial court as and when their presence would be required and they would not take adjournment especially when the prosecution witnesses would be in attendance.

¶23

If in the opinion of the trial court default of any of the condition placed above is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and shall proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶24

If in the opinion of the trial court/special court the sureties, which have already been filed by the applicants in compliance of the interim order of this Court are sufficient, they may be accepted by the trial court as has been filed under this order.

¶25

It is clarified that all the observations contained in this order are only for disposal of this anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial proceedings in any manner.

¶26

Order Date :- 2.2.2024 Muk

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Kaleem Shakoor and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. (Home), Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Kaleem Shakoor and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. (Home), Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 2 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shoeb Iqbal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Santosh Gupta @ Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Rahul Singh @ Rahul Somvanshi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Confidential Lko. and Another

Izhar Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

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

Mohd. Kaleem Shakoor and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. (Home), Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 2 Others