Allowed

Mohd Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2024ABAIL/7135/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Mohd Ahmad in a fraud case involving insurance misrepresentation where the charge sheet had been filed.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till the end of trial upon personal bond of Rs. 50,000/ - and two sureties in the like amount, subject to standard bail conditions.

Mohd Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:150666

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7135 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hari Nath Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Mohd. Ahmad seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 372 of 2019 under Sections 420, 406 IPC, Police Station Bhognipur, District- Kanpur Dehat.

¶8

On the false pretext of profitable policy the accused induced the lady informant to invest huge amount of money in Kalpjeevan Agro Farming Ltd. which is an insurance company. The informant paid large amount of money to the present applicant for the purpose of securing some fixed deposits and in the same manner the other co-accused persons were also paid by the informant, however on maturity no amount was paid to the informant. FIR was lodged on 23.8.2019 and after investigation now the charge sheet has been submitted.

¶9

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. The investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned. It is further submitted that the present applicant has no concern with the Kalpjeevan Agro Farming Ltd. Insurance Company. It is further submitted that the informant never paid any money as insurance premium to the present applicant and there is no witness for the same. It is further submitted that the informant herself in her statement and her father-in-law Ram Autar in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have narrated nothing against the present applicant on the point as to how they are concerned

¶10

with the insurance company. It is also submitted that the real brother-in-law of the informant himself is the agent of the insurance company and he has been a master mind of all the fraud. It is also submitted that during investigation notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. was given to the applicant by the I.O. of the case and he never misused the liberty of the same. It is further submitted that the criminal history of two cases shown against the applicant has been explained in the affidavit. It is further submitted that vide order dated 24.7.2024, the applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court and he has not misused the interim protection granted to him. It is further submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. No custodial interrogation is required from the applicant in this matter, as the alleged offences are punishable with the imprisonment for a maximum period of seven years. He has been cooperative with the trial court so far. There is no chance of fleeing away of the applicant. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but however at this stage prima facie could not explain as to how the present applicant is concerned with the fraud of the insurance company.

¶12

In the present matter the charge sheet has been submitted. No custodial interrogation seems to be required. Criminal history of the applicant has already been explained.

¶13

Although the charge sheet has been submitted in this matter but in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶14

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶15

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It

¶16

has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶17

8. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that :

¶18

"11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87 Cr.P.C that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.

¶19

In so far as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170Cr.P.C, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."

¶20

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of trial in the matter.

¶21

The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.

¶22

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the end of trial on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties

¶23

each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶24

(i) The applicant shall make himself available before the Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial.

¶25

(ii) 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶26

(iii) The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶27

(iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶28

(v) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶29

In case of default of any of the conditions, the same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶30

It is made clear that the submissions and observations made in this order are only for deciding the anticipatory bail application. Trial Court while deciding the trial will not be influenced with the same.

¶31

Order Date :- 13.9.2024

¶32

¶33

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Ahmad 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prakash Soni vs State of Up

Archana Sonkar vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipin Yadav @ Vipan vs State of U.P. and Another

Beena Rai vs State of U.P. and Another

Tinku Alias Shaikh Hasim vs State of U.P.

Shekhar vs State of U.P. and Anothers