Allowed

Shamima and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2024ABAIL/4564/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge Court allowed an anticipatory bail application for two applicants charged with cheque dishonesty, forgery, and cheating. The Court relied on parity with a co-accused and Supreme Court precedent to grant bail with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicants enlarged on anticipatory bail to trial on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each, subject to conditions regarding appearance and non-interference.

Shamima and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:115610

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4564 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Shamima And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Danish Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Mohammad Danish, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material available on record.

¶7

This is the second anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the applicants in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 135 of 2023, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 of IPC, Police Station - Mainather, District - Moradabad, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶8

The first anticipatory bail application of the applicants was dismissed of having rendered infructuous as the final report (charge-sheet) was filed in the matter, vide order dated 02.12.2023 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.8663 of 2023. Earlier to it, the same Bench had granted interim protection to the applicants vide order dated 18.08.2023.

¶9

This Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter as the anticipatory bail application of the co-accused person, Yamin was decided by this Court prior to the passing of the interim order in favour of the applicants vide order dated 02.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.8616 of 2023. Subsequent to it, this Court was pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the co-accused Shahrukh Malik on the ground of parity vide order dated 08.01.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.13629 of 2023 as both the persons are the marginal witnesses of the alleged sale-deed.

¶10

Prosecution Story:

¶11

As per prosecution story, the co-accused Mohd. Rashid is stated

¶12

to have impersonated the informant and got the sale-deed executed in favour of the applicant no.1 without any title.

¶13

Rival Contentions: (Arguments on behalf of applicants)

¶14

It is stated that the applicant no.1 is the bonafide purchaser and has nothing to do with the said offence. She herself has been duped of her hard earned money.

¶15

The applicant no.2 is the husband of the applicant no.1 although he was a party to the said deal conducted with his wife. It is further stated that the main accused person is Mohd. Rashid, who has duped the informant.

¶16

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. It is further submitted that the applicants have no criminal history. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed, they will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶17

(Arguments on behalf of State)

¶18

The anticipatory bail has been opposed but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants and also the fact that the applicants have no criminal history.

¶19

Conclusion:

¶20

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1 ". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court.

¶21

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed .

¶22

In the event of arrest of the applicants, Shamima and Mehndi

¶23

Hasan, involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶24

i. that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶25

ii. that 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; iii. that the applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶26

iv. that the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶27

v. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶28

vi. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence are exempted;

¶29

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicants.

¶30

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

¶31

Order Date:- 19.7.2024 Siddhant

¶32

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shamima and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamima and Another v. State of U.P. 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

Similar cases

Shakil vs State of Up

Nafees Ahmad vs State of Up and 2 Others

Mohd Sarif vs State of Up and Another

Fateh Mohammad vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kishan Pal vs State of U.P. and Another

Avinash vs State of Up and Another