Allowed

Nurooddin and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2024ABAIL/715/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to applicants in a cheating case where co-accused were dropped. The court observed no need for custody despite pending investigation due to lack of criminal history and cooperation by applicants. Bail granted with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicants released on bail upon arrest if they furnish personal bond with two sureties and comply with specified conditions.

Nurooddin and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:27225

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 715 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Nurooddin And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shashank Shukla,Prachi Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The instant application has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.0181/2018, under Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 IPC, relating to police station Tarabganj, District Gonda.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants have been falsely implicated. It is submitted that in the FIR in question, the alleged incident is said to be dated 09.03.2017 whereas the FIR was lodged in the month of June, 2018 almost after a year.

¶9

It is further alleged that the complainant had met one Babu who is co-accused in Saudi Arabia while the complainant had gone there for employment. Even while the complainant had returned to India, he was in constant touch with Babu. It is, therefore, alleged that the complainant was persuaded to get a fresh visa and work permits and for the aforesaid purposes certain money had exchanged which at the instance of Babu was transferred in the accounts of the present applicants.

¶10

It is also urged in the FIR that when the complainant had demanded his money there was an altercation between the parties and the complainant was cheated, hence, the FIR was lodged.

¶11

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that insofar as the FIR is concerned, the main allegation is against Babu against whom no credible evidence is found and his name was dropped from the charge-sheet so is the situation with the other co-accused Saddam, however, merely on the statement of the complainant, the names of the applicants have been

¶12

incorporated. Apart from the fact that during the course of investigation, the applicants had cooperated and it was not expedient to seek custodial interrogation nor they were arrested. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, it is urged that where the complaint case is pending and the applicants are under an impending threat of being arrested and in such circumstances, the applicants may be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶13

Learned AGA has opposed the aforesaid the anticipatory bail and submitted that it is open for the applicants to appear before the Court concerned and in the aforesaid circumstances, the anticipatory bail application be rejected.

¶14

Having considered the submissions and from the perusal of the material on record, it could not be disputed that the custody of the applicants was not required during the investigation. It is also not disputed that the applicants cooperated during investigation and the fact that the co-accused Babu and Saddam, who were the named co-accused in the FIR and their names have been dropped from the charge-sheet and there is no clear indication regarding the role of the present applicants except that some amount was transferred on their account.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the applicants including that they have no criminal history and no apprehension has been expressed that the applicants are at flight risk, hence, this Court is of the opinion that the applicants can be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶16

In the event of arrest of the applicants- Nurooddin and Mohammad Farhan involved in the aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number, shall be released on bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court Concerned, with the conditions:-

¶17

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

¶18

(b) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶19

¶20

the trial;

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

Order Date :- 3.4.2024 Rakesh/-

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nurooddin and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nurooddin and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Harishankar @ Dahpel and Another Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rachit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Kali Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home

Shadab Ali vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Mohd. Irfan @ Kaju Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Vijay Pal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt Lko.