Allowed

Atiqur Rahman v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Allahabad HC21 Mar 2024BAIL/3092/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC for alleged use of applicant's identity in a fictitious sale deed. Court noted applicant's age (72), custody since January 2023, compromise between affected parties, and absence of flight or tampering risk, and allowed bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two reliable sureties, subject to stated bail conditions.

Atiqur Rahman vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:29390

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3092 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Atiqur Rahman Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-respondent.

¶7

The instant bail application has been moved by the applicant, who has been arraigned in Case Crime No.346 of 2022, under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District- Gonda.

¶8

The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated. It is urged that the applicant had no means to know regarding the transaction, which was sought to be executed in the name of the applicant, but it is the other co-accused who played the instrumental role and used the identity of the applicant for getting a fictitious sale deed in favour of Smt. Kamala. It is further urged that insofar as the transaction is concerned, the affected parties have already entered into a compromise, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.2. It is further urged that other coaccused person has enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court. The charge sheet has already been filed and there is no chance for the applicant either to influence any witness or tamper with evidence. It is lastly submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 15.01.2023. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶10

Having considered the aforesaid and also noticing the age of the applicant is 72 years and he has been in jail since 15.01.2023 as well as that the matter relates to property dispute, wherein the affected parties have entered into a compromise and the fact that no apprehension has been expressed by the learned AGA that the applicant is at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

Accordingly, the instant bail application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant- Atiqur Rahman involved in the abovementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. At the time of executing required sureties, the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶14

(ii) 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, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

(iii) 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.

¶16

(iv) 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. is issued and the 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) 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.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

Order Date :- 10.4.2024 Ashutosh

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Atiqur Rahman v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atiqur Rahman v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

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

Smt. Mamta Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Rajkumar Singh and Others vs Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Others

Altaf Husain @ Altaf vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Kapil Dev K.D. Singh Pvt., Industrial Training Institute, Ballia Thru. Member Premshankar Sharma vs Union of India Thru. Secy., Deptt. of Skill, Development/ Entrepreneurship Ministry and Others

Smt. Suman Devi and Others vs Sumit Agrawal and Others

Mahesh Chandra Soni vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.