Allowed

Tahjib and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2024ABAIL/7128/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought by two applicants implicated via a co-accused's statement in a tractor recovery case under IPC sections including cheating and forgery. Court, citing Supreme Court guidelines and considering the role of the accused and facts, allowed the application subject to standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicants to be released on arrest on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 each with two sureties, subject to conditions including no tampering with evidence and appearance before trial court.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:128352

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7128 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Tahjib And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajai Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case No. 7183 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 242 of 2021, under Sections - 413, 414, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station - Pakbara, District - Moradabad, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for applicants that applicants are innocent and that they have an apprehension of arrest as charge sheet has been filed against them. According to the prosecution version, on 30.07.2021 after receipt of secret information, police have conducted a raid and that four tractors were recovered from spot and co-accused Subhani was arrested at the spot. Learned counsel submitted that involvement of applicant has been shown on the basis of statement of co-accused Subhani and except that there is no other evidence against the applicant. There is no such evidence that said tractors were stolen property. Regarding one of the tractor, the tractor owner has stated that he has sold the tractor to applicant-accused Ehsan @ Ahsan. It is further submitted that applicants were granted anticipatory bail

¶9

during investigation till the filing of charge sheet and they have never misused the liberty of bail and now charge sheet has already been submitted and thus applicants are no more required for the purpose of investigation. Lastly, it was submitted that in case, applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the trial and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

¶11

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶12

In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶13

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicants - Tahjib and Ehsan @ Ahsan involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.

¶15

50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶16

i. The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

ii.The applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

iii.The applicants shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

iv. The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶20

v. 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the Court below shall be at liberty to cancel bail of applicants in accordance with law.

¶22

Order Date :- 8.8.2024 S Rawat

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tahjib and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tahjib and Another 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rampal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Vivek Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Jamunadas and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Kumar and 2 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others

Anand Kumar and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Jeetu @ Anurag @ 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another