Allowed

Mohd. Sahim Ansari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2024ABAIL/2731/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted limited interim anticipatory bail to Mohd. Sahim Ansari in a forgery case involving 136 accused. Direction issued for release on ₹50,000 bond if arrested before police report submission under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Direction to release forthwith on anticipatory bail if arrested, subject to bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of similar amount.

Mohd. Sahim Ansari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:83834

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2731 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Sahim Ansari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar,Ajay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including up-to-date case diary.

¶8

Heard Shri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The instant application has been moved by the applicant- Mohd. Sahim Ansari in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 79 of 2021, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., Police Station Ghazipur, District Lucknow, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail, as he is apprehending arrest in the abovementioned case.

¶10

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. In the FIR. In the F.I.R. 136 persons have been named including the applicant and allegations have been made that while applying for his registration the applicant has enclosed forged mark-sheet which after verification was not authenticated by the college by which it was shown to have been issued, while the applicant has never applied for registration.

¶11

It is vehemently submitted that first information report of this case has been lodged in a cursory manner and it appears that due to some misunderstanding the name of the applicant has been dragged into this case. It is also submitted that during the course of investigation name of 71 persons have also been further revealed.

¶12

It is next submitted that for the last three years the investigation of the case is going on and the applicant is cooperating in the investigation. However, the same is at the concluding stage and the investigating officer by

¶13

misinterpreting Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. is making all out efforts to apprehend/arrest of the applicant. Applicant is not having any criminal history and he is ready to cooperate in the investigation and would remain present before the investigating officer as and when his presence would be required. Identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Jafar Ali, Arvind Kumar Chaurasiya, Mohd. Nadeem Khan, Abhishek Kumar Agarwal, Ankit Kumar Agarwal, Raghvendra Singh, Narendra Srivastava, Vikram Singh, Sarvesh Chandra Mishr, Akash Kumar Ray, Anupama Singh, Amit Kumar Trivedi, Kishor Majumdar, Guru Bux Singh, Parvez Ali, Shiv Prakash Bharti, Apoorv Omar, Suresh Byapari, Rajeev Prajapati, Asrar Ahmad and Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, vide orders dated 5.8.2024, 29.2.2024, 6.8.2024, 2.9.2024, 05.09.2024 21.9.2024, 18.10.2024, 22.10.2024, 22.10.2024, 22.10.2024, 22.10.2024, 22.10.2024, 22.10.2024, 22.10.2024, 22.10.2024, 22.10.2024, 22.10.2024, 22.10.2024, 22.10.2024, 4.10.2024 and 1.10.2024 passed in CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. Nos. - 1737 of 2024, 424 of 2024, 1746 of 2024, 1992 of 2024, 2042 of 2024, 2177 of 2024, 2348 of 2024, 2394 of 2024, 2392 of 2024, 2395 of 2024, 2391 of 2024, 2384 of 2024, 2383 of 2024, 2381 of 2024, 2382 of 2024, 2380 of 2024, 2379 of 2024, 2376 of 2024, 2375 of 2024, 2316 of 2024 and 2265 of 2024 respectively.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that having regard to the manner in which the offence has been committed, the applicant is not entitled for any protection.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that the F.I.R. of this case was lodged against 136 accused persons. Allegations against them are identical i.e. of submitting forged documents and 71 more persons are shown to have been now added during the course of investigation and also keeping in view the fact that the investigation of this case is pending for the last three years, a case of anticipatory bail is made out in favour of the applicant. Identically placed co-accused persons, namely,Jafar Ali, Arvind Kumar Chaurasiya, Mohd. Nadeem Khan, Abhishek Kumar Agarwal, Ankit Kumar Agarwal, Raghvendra Singh, Narendra Srivastava, Vikram Singh, Sarvesh Chandra Mishr, Akash Kumar Ray, Anupama Singh, Amit Kumar Trivedi, Kishor Majumdar, Guru Bux Singh, Parvez Ali, Shiv Prakash Bharti, Apoorv Omar, Suresh Byapari, Rajeev Prajapati, Asrar Ahmad and Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court.

¶16

Thus, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble

¶17

Supreme Court in Nathu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others, 2021(6) SCC 64, MANU/SC/0360/2021 , protection from arrest for limited period of time i.e. till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., may be granted in favour of the applicant.

¶18

In result, the anticipatory bail application moved by the applicant- Mohd. Sahim Ansari is finally disposed of with a direction that till the submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., in the event of arrest of the applicant in the above-mentioned case, he shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/ - and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/ Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions:-

¶19

(1) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation or even for discovery of any fact by a police officer as and when required;

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

In case of default of any condition the investigating officer may approach this Court for cancellation/modification of this order.

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 13.12.2024 Muk

¶25

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

Mohd. Sahim Ansari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Sahim Ansari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

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

Rinki Devi Thru. Her Father Mahesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Gokaran Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. the Pein. Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

Bhoopendr Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home and 5 Ors.

Smt. Shalini Thru. Her Husband Sandip Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Vineet Kumar @ Anuj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sunil Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko