Dismissed

Imran Khan v. the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and Another

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2024ABAIL/209/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by Imran Khan. The court found a prima facie nexus between the applicant's alleged acts, including loan default and cheque dishonour, and the deceased's suicide under Section 306 IPC.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application was rejected.

Imran Khan vs the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:16838

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 209 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Imran Khan Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pushkal Shukla,Komal Prasad Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sachin Chaturvedi

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Compliance affidavits have been filed by Dr. Durgesh Kumar, D.C.P. (West), Commissionerate, Lucknow as well as by Shri Abhinav Kumar Verma, S.H.O. of Police StationDubagga, Lucknow, explaining therein the causes, under which the order of this Court has not been complied. The said compliance affidavits are taken on record and the S.H.O, Dubagga, Lucknow, who is personally present in this Court, is directed not to appear before this Court, unless called for.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The instant application has been moved by the applicant- Imran Khan, in Case Crime No. 0005 of 2024, under Sections 306, 406, 420 of I.P.C., Police Station- Dubagga, DistrictLucknow, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The suicide note, which is alleged to have been written by the deceased is not making out any sense and specific allegations against the applicant has not been alleged therein, moreover, the authenticity of the suicide note has still not been established and in fact, the applicant has not taken any loan or amount from the deceased.

¶10

It is further submitted that even if the case of the prosecution is taken on its face, the necessary ingredients to invoke Section 306 of the I.P.C., are not available, as there is complete absence of any connection or nexus with any act of the applicant with the commission of suicide by the deceased.

¶11

It is also submitted that the applicant is undertaking to cooperate in the investigation and would remain present before the Investigating Officer, as and when his presence would be

¶12

required. Criminal history of two cases have been explained.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that applicant is accused of committing an heinous offence. The suicide note written by the deceased has been sent to forensic lab and if this suicide note is taken on its face, it will emerge that the act and omission of the applicant and other co-accused persons are sufficient enough to connect the applicant with the commission of suicide by the deceased, as it has come in the statement of various witnesses that applicant and other co-accused persons have taken money as loan from the deceased and for the last many months, they were not paying the same and ultimately, separate cheques have been issued by them and all these cheques were dishonoured. Thus, there is a direct connection and nexus between the alleged act of the applicant and coaccused persons with the commission of suicide by the deceased.

¶14

Perusal of the record would reveal that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by the son of the deceased, wherein the applicant has been named. In the F.I.R., it is alleged that a loan of Rs.38,78,000/- was given by the deceased in favour of the applicant and other co-accused persons. It is also alleged that accused persons have given various cheques to the deceased, which were dishonoured and the loan taken from the deceased was not paid and the deceased was also humiliated. It is also the case of the prosecution that on various occasions, different strategies have been adopted by the applicant and other coaccused persons to delay the payment of loan and aggrieved and humiliated by the same, the deceased had committed suicide. There is no dispute that a suicide note has been recovered, which is alleged to have been in the handwriting of the deceased and the same has also been sent to the Forensic lab for examination.

¶15

Thus, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, a direct nexus and connection prima facie appears to be existing between the alleged act or commission of the applicant with the commission of suicide by the deceased, sufficient enough to attract Section 306 of I.P.C.

¶16

In result, I do not find any good ground, on the basis of which the facility of anticipatory bail may be exercised in favour of the applicant. Thus, the the instant anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant- Imran Khan is, hereby rejected.

¶17

Order Date :- 23.2.2024/ Gurpreet Singh

¶18

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

Imran Khan v. the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran Khan v. the State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home 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

Pankaj Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rajesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Umesh Kumar Gaur @ Umesh Gaur and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home

Raghav Ram Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Ajeet Kumar Gupta @ Ajeet Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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