Dismissed

Ikbal Ahmad @ Ikbal Ahmad Shekh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2024ABAIL/234/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge Bench rejected an anticipatory bail application filed by Ikbal Ahmad, noting a 23-year delay between summons and application and lack of proof that he was out of jurisdiction. The applicant was held to be an absconder without valid explanation. However, it was clarified that this dismissal does not bar the applicant from immediately seeking regular bail from the trial court within

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed. Applicant directed to file regular bail in trial court within 15 days.

Ikbal Ahmad @ Ikbal Ahmad Shekh vs State of U.P. Thru… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:12101

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 234 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ikbal Ahmad @ Ikbal Ahmad Shekh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including up-to-date case diary and the charge sheet in this case has been filed way back in the year 2001 and applicant appears to be an absconder.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant application has been moved by the applicant- Ikbal Ahmad @ Ikbal Ahmad Shekh in Case Crime No. 315 of 2000, under Sections 419, 420 and 199 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending arrest in the abovementioned case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The F.I.R. was lodged by moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the investigating officer on insufficient evidence has submitted the charge sheet.

¶10

It is further submitted that applicant has never received any process of the trial court and he is intending to appear before the trial court for the purpose of participation in the trial and would remain present before the trial court as and when his presence would be required. Thus, the anticipatory bail be granted to him.

¶11

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of anticipatory bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant appears to be an absconder as nothing has been brought on record which may even primafacie suggest that applicant had approached any superior court for the purpose of challenging the summoning order or the charge sheet, as the case may be and he has

¶12

approached this Court after a long period of 23 years and, thus, he is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that the charge sheet in this case has been filed way back in the year 2001 and in the same year applicant has been summoned to face trial. Various submissions have been made by learned counsel for the applicant touching the merits of the case in order to show that the case against the applicant has been falsely cooked up. However, there is nothing on record which may even primafacie suggest any justifiable explanation to show as to how and why the applicant is approaching this Court or the trial Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. with a delay of 23 years. No material has been brought on record even to show that no process under Section 82-83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant. Thus, in nutshell the applicant has failed to explain the time period of 23 years during which he appears to be not appearing before the trial court.

¶14

In result, I do not find any substance in the instant anticipatory bail application and the same is, hereby, dismissed/rejected.

¶15

However, mere dismissal of this anticipatory bail application will not preclude the applicant/accused person to immediately approach the trial court for the purpose of getting regular bail and if any regular bail application is filed by the applicants with expedition to say within a period of 15 days from today, the trial court shall be under an obligation to dispose of said regular bail application in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 as well as In Re: To issue certain Guidelines Regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in Criminal Trials v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, MANU/SC/0292/2021.

¶16

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.

¶17

Order Date :- 9.2.2024 Praveen

¶18

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

Ikbal Ahmad @ Ikbal Ahmad Shekh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ikbal Ahmad @ Ikbal Ahmad Shekh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Govind Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Govind Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Mahesh Prasad Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Ikbal Ahmad @ Ikbal Ahmad Shekh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Raheem @ Raheem Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others