Allowed

Noor Alam Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2025ABAIL/2632/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application by a marginal witness to a sale deed allegedly executed through an imposter. Mutation had been cancelled following a settlement. Granting parity with a co-accused who received similar relief and relying on Sushila Aggarwal, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions including surrender within twenty days.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail: surrender within 20 days; release on personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions on evidence tampering, travel, witnesses, and trial attendance.

Noor Alam Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38401

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2632 of 2024 Applicant :- Noor Alam Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Naveen Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No. 398 of 2022, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Katra Bazaar, District Gonda.

¶6

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

¶7

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 01.10.2022 against 4 persons, including the applicant, alleging that the co-accused Imtiyaz Khan got a sale deed of the informant's land executed in his favour by putting up an imposter. The applicant was a witness of the execution of the deed. Prior to lodging of the FIR, the informant and coaccused Imtiyaz Khan has entered into a settlement that was filed before the Naib Tehsildar in proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 wherein it was agreed that the sale deed dated 14.05.2022 executed in favour of co-accused Imtiyaz be treated as null and void and mutation order dated 18.07.2022 passed in his favour be cancelled. In furtherance of the aforesaid settlement, Naib Tehsildar has passed an order o 22.09.2022, cancelling the mutation order dated 18.07.2022.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. No money has been credited to his

¶9

account, and he is not the beneficiary of the impugned sale transaction. His involvement is limited to being a marginal witness. It is further submitted that the applicant’s role is identical to that of co-accused Santosh Kumar, who has already been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.11.2023 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 2437 of 2023. The applicant, therefore, seeks parity with the said order. It is also submitted that the applicant has fully cooperated during the investigation and undertakes to cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶10

The learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail, however, has not been able to dispute the fact that the applicant’s role is similar to that of co-accused Santosh Kumar.

¶11

Having regard to the fact that a co-accused with an identical role has been granted anticipatory bail, the role attributed to the applicant, and the assurance of his cooperation in the trial, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant deserves to be granted anticipatory bail on the ground of parity, in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and Others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , subject to his continued cooperation in the trial.

¶12

In view of the above, the accused-applicant is directed to surrender before the trial court within a period of twenty days from today. Upon his surrender, the trial court shall release him on anticipatory bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court, with the following conditions:-

¶13

(i) The applicant shall refrain from directly or indirectly inducing, threatening, or promising any person familiar with the facts of the case in a manner that may dissuade them from revealing such facts before the Court or result in tampering with

¶14

the evidence;

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall not travel outside India without prior permission from the Court;

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall not attempt to influence or intimidate any prosecution witness;

¶17

(iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on all scheduled dates unless specifically exempted from personal appearance;

¶18

(v) In the event of any violation of the aforementioned conditions, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant;

¶19

Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed.

¶20

It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed . Order Date :- 7.7.2025 R.C.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Noor Alam Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noor Alam Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko 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

Mohd. Fayaz Ahmad @ Faizan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohit Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Mohd. Sahil Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Govt. Lko

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

Anand Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Masrur Ahmad in Fir Masroof Ahmad @ Masrur Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Sectt. Lko