Allowed

Aizaz Khan @Tinku v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2024BAIL/7828/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench granted bail to the applicant in a cheating case under IPC Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471. The Court permitted release after observing that fact witnesses had been examined, eliminating risk of tampering, subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and bond furnishing.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond with two sureties subject to strict conditions regarding court attendance and conduct during trial.

Aizaz Khan @Tinku vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:56288

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 7828 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Aizaz Khan @ Tinku Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

¶5

Counsel for Applicant :- Desh Deepak Singh,Sandeep Kumar Pal

¶6

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed a rejoinder affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶9

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

¶10

By means of this second bail application, the applicant seeks bail in respect of FIR/Case Crime No.224/2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Qaiserbagh, District Lucknow.

¶11

This Court while rejecting the first bail application of the applicant vide order dated 07.05.2024 have made the following observations:-

¶12

"The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant had reached the site at the later stage and not when the scuffle has started is not material. What is important to note is that while the applicant was on bail knowing fully well that Smt. Shaila was a witness, yet the applicant involved himself in an assault where Smt. Shaila is said to have received four injuries. This has been taken note of by the trial Court while rejecting the bail application as this amounts to violating the condition of bail.

¶13

In the aforesaid circumstances where the trial is in progress and two witnesses of fact are yet to be examined, in such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected leaving it open for the applicant to move a fresh application once the remaining two witnesses of fact are examined before the trial Court.

¶14

Needless to say that since the order of expedition has already been passed and the trial Court shall ensure that the trial is concluded expeditiously and the prosecution shall also ensure that it will not seek any unnecessary adjournment for examining the witnesses.".

¶15

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that even though the applicant was not involved in the scuffle, but since there was certain injuries to the witness and noticing this fact the bail application was cancelled. Thereafter, upon the same reasoning, the bail application was rejected by this Court leaving it open to move afresh bail application once the witness of fact are examined by the trial Court.

¶16

The further submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that despite the clear observations of this Court, the trial has been procrastinated by the complainant and in order to substantiate the aforesaid averments, the applicant has filed certain order-sheets. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that the last witness of fact has also been examined and the copy of his deposition has been brought on record along with the rejoinder affidavit filed today. In such circumstances, where the applicant has been in jail since 08.01.2024 and the witnesses of fact have been examined, there does not appear to be any reasonable apprehension that the applicant would violate any of the bail condition, as such, it is prayed that the bail be granted to the applicant.

¶17

Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application and submitted that they have every apprehension that the applicant would once again violate the bail condition as there are other cases as well wherein the witnesses are almost the same including in a suit filed before the Civil Court concerned wherein certain declaration has been sought. In such circumstances, it is urged that the bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected.

¶18

Learned A.G.A., on the basis of material in the case diary available with him, has also opposed the prayer for bail on similar premise.

¶19

The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

¶20

It is not disputed that the instant case crime number, the applicant was enlarged on bail, however, on account of an incident which occurred upon which the State Authorities made an application for cancellation of bail of the applicant and in furtherance thereof, the applicant was apprehended and jailed on 08.01.2024.

¶21

Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned AGA could not dispute the fact that so far as the statement of the witnesses of fact are concerned, the same has concluded.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid as well as the liberty granted by this Court while rejecting the first bail application of the applicant on 07.05.2024, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not at the risk of fleeing justice or that he would tamper with evidence or influence any witness, hence, 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.

¶23

Let the applicant Aizaz Khan @ Tinku involved in the aforesaid FIR/Case Crime Number 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.

¶24

At the time of executing required sureties the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice.

¶25

(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.

¶26

(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.

¶27

(iii) 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.

¶28

(iv) 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.

¶29

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

¶30

Order Date :- 14.8.2024 Rakesh/-

¶31

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

Aizaz Khan @Tinku v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aizaz Khan @Tinku v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Ram Jiyawan Pal and Others vs Learned Deputy Director Consolidation and Others

Putti Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Ramesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Savita Gupta and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Home Affairs, Lucknow and Others

Vijay Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Abdul Rasheed @ Rashid Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Teh Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 3 Others