Allowed

Mr. Mohammad Ashfaq v. the State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2024ABAIL/1648/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court made absolute the interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving offenses under various IPC sections. The order considered the delay in FIR lodging and reliance on apex court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. granted earlier on 26.07.2024 was made absolute.

Mr. Mohammad Ashfaq vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:65615

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1648 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mr. Mohammad Ashfaq Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Raghvendra Pandey,Ankit Pandey,Nikhil Dwivedi,Rahul Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arshad Jameel,Kahkashan Zaidi,Mohammad Naseem

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in F.I.R./Case Crime No.238/2023, under Sections 406/420/467/468/471 IPC, P.S. Thakurganj, District Lucknow.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant.

¶8

This Court while granting interim protection to the applicant vide order dated 26.07.2024 has passed the following order:-

¶9

" Heard learned counsel the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.PC. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case crime/F.I.R No. 238/2023, under Sections 406/420/467/468/471 IPC, P.S. Thakurganj, District Lucknow.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated. The FIR has been lodged after a delay of 24 months. There is nothing on record to substantiate the allegations as alleged in the FIR. Even the date of incident has not been mentioned in the FIR. The applicant has not signed any document. The applicant has not received any money through any mode of payment which can connect the applicant from the alleged crime. It is a vague FIR.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not a previous convict; he has explained his criminal antecedents and he undertakes to cooperate in the investigation.

¶13

Issue notice to respondent No. 2.

¶14

Learned Addl. Government Advocate prays for and is allowed 15 days' time to file counter affidavit.

¶15

List on 20.08.2024.

¶16

On due consideration to the argument advanced as well as perusal of the record and the fact that the offences are triable by magistrate; the

¶17

applicant has explained his criminal history of one case and also considering the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, as an interim measure, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶18

Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned.

¶19

The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused-applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶20

In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection. "

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that charge sheet in the matter has been filed. The applicant has cooperated in the investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

¶22

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶23

On due consideration to the submission advanced by the parties, delay in lodging the FIR, applicant has no criminal history and offences are triable by the Magistrate, he has cooperated in the investigation and further undertakes to cooperate in the trial, the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 26.07.2024 is made absolute in view of dictum of Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 .

¶24

It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed .

¶26

Order Date :- 20.9.2024 Ashutosh

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mr. Mohammad Ashfaq v. the State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Mohammad Ashfaq v. the State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko 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

Babadin Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ajay Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Pravesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shakil Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Brijesh Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Bhupendra Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.