Allowed

Faiz Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2024BAIL/1339/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought bail in a criminal case involving cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court, noting that a similarly situated co-accused had already been granted bail, allowed the bail application on the ground of parity, imposing standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties, and compliance with standard bail conditions.

Faiz Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29461

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 1339 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Faiz Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Pal,Bhoopal Singh,Pawan Kumar,Udai Pratap Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in F.I.R. No. 694 of 2021, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.

¶8

The submissions of learned counsel for the applicant are that the applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that the applicant was appointed as a System Operator in M/s. Shine City Infra Pvt. Ltd and was being paid salary. It is vehemently submitted that there is no evidence against the applicant for cheating the customers and the F.I.R. was lodged implicating all the employees of the Company. It is also submitted that the applicant has been implicated in 6 identical cases. It is next submitted that the charge sheet has already been filed and the applicant is in jail since 27.05.2023. The case of the applicant is similar to coaccused Abhishek Thakur @ Abhishek Kumar Singh, who has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 01.03.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12442 of 2022. In these circumstances, the applicant is also entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶9

Photocopy of the bail order of co-accused Abhishek

¶10

Thakur @ Abhishek Kumar Singh provided by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant, but fairly concedes that similarly situated coaccused Abhishek Thakur @ Abhishek Kumar Singh has already been granted bail and the applicant was an employee in the Company.

¶12

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A., ground of parity with the coaccused and going through the material available on record as well as totality of fact and circumstances, I am of the view that it is a fit case for bail. Application stands allowed on the ground of parity.

¶13

Let applicant -Faiz Ahmad be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 694 of 2021 (supra), on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶14

(i) 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.

¶15

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office or tamper with the evidence.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause,

¶18

the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A IPC.

¶19

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A IPC.

¶20

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (a) opening of the case, (b) framing of charge; and (c) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

Any violation of above conditions will be treated misuse of bail and learned Court below will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the matter regarding cancellation of bail.

¶22

Order Date :- 10.4.2024 VKS

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Faiz Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faiz Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

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

Radhey Shyam Kannaujiya vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 2 Others

Akhilesh Kumar Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Krishna Kumar Yadav @ Pankaj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shatruhan Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Another

Sumit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sarvesh Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another