Allowed

Munshaid v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Aug 2024ABAIL/6274/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC. The court observed that allegations against the applicant were found false during the initial investigation and no charge sheet was filed against him, unlike co-accused. Since no cogent evidence could be collected during further investigation, the court held the apprehension of arrest could not be ruled out.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was granted release on anticipatory bail subject to a personal bond with two sureties and specific conditions including availability for interrogation and not tampering with evidence.

Munshaid vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:124387

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6274 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Munshaid Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶6

Dr. S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State, apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, the instant anticipatory bail application may be finally disposed off.

¶7

Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State.

¶8

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.371 of 2021, under Sections 420,467,468,471 and 120B IPC, Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffar Nagar during pendency of the trial.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, applicant was named in the FIR with the allegation that he and other co-accused committed fraud and they sold the property of the informant but during investigation the involvement of the applicant was found false and no charge sheet was filed against him and charge sheet was filed against two other accused persons in the year 2022 but when protest petition was filed by informant then on the protest petition court concerned directed for further investigation and during further investigation with the aid of Section 120-B IPC applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

¶10

He further submits that as per prosecution applicant was also involved in commission of the alleged crime but there is no cogent evidence against the applicant on record.

¶11

He further submits that further investigation is still pending and police is trying to arrest the applicant.

¶12

He further submits that as during investigation applicant was not arrested and his complicity was found incorrect, therefore, during further investigation there is no occasion to arrest the applicant.

¶13

He further submits that applicant is not having any previous criminal history.

¶14

Per contra, learned AGA although opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the argument on facts advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶16

However, it appears that there was allegation that applicant and others committed fraud and by playing fraud the property of the informant was disposed of but during investigation allegations levelled against the applicant were found false and no charge sheet was filed against the applicant and charge sheet was filed in the year 2022 only against two co-accused but when informant filed protest petition then on his protest petition court concerned directed for further investigation and it appears that during further investigation applicant was again made accused.

¶17

12 As during investigation allegations levelled against the applicant were found false and at that time he was not arrested and even during further investigation it reflects that no cogent evidence

¶18

could be collected by the Investigating Officer till date and apprehension of arrest raised by applicant cannot be ruled out at this stage, therefore, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of the trial.

¶19

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail anticipatory application is allowed.

¶20

In the event of arrest of the applicant -Munshaid involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till the conclusion of the trial case 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:-

¶21

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶22

(ii) that 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶24

(iv) that the applicant shall not temper with the evidence during the trial;

¶25

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

¶26

(vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

Order Date :- 2.8.2024 SKM

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Munshaid v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munshaid v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Arun Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Sadhana and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Jain vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Meera and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Abdul Hameed vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another