Mohammad Athar Siddiqui Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20897

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 380 of 2025

Applicant :- Mohammad Athar Siddiqui Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nadeem Murtaza,Wali Nawaz Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1.

¶7

In view of order being passed, notices to opposite party no.2 (indicated as opposite party no.3) stand dispensed with.

¶8

First bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.450 of 2023 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 409, 120B I.P.C. P.S. Purakalandar, District Ayodhya/Faizabad.

¶9

As per contents of first information report, which has been lodged against eight persons including applicant, it has been alleged that an amount of Rs.4,13,321/- has been unauthorizedly paid for construction in the Village Panchayat without any actual construction having taken place. Applicant is indicated as Accountant and is said to have made the embezzlement with active connivance of co-accused Mahesh Kumar who was Rozgar Sewak and Satya Prakash who was computer operator.

¶10

It has been submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from fact that there is no averment in F.I.R. with regard to role of applicant in ensuring that amount was paid after verification of construction having taken place. It is submitted that the main accused Mahesh Kumar and co-accused Satya Prakash have already been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Anticipatory Bail Applications numbered 2735 of 2023 and 3058 of 2023 respectively. It is submitted that investigation is almost over in which applicant has cooperated.

¶11

Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed anticipatory bail with submission that a bare perusal of F.I.R. will indicate active connivance of applicant along with co-accused in aforesaid embezzlement. It is submitted that applicant in fact was an accountant whose primary role was to have ensured the vouchers before payment was made. It is however admitted that co-accused have already been enlarged on bail and investigation is almost at an end. It is also admitted that applicant has cooperated in investigation.

¶12

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned

¶13

counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, prima facie, it appears that applicant has been made an accused along with main accused Mahesh Kumar and computer operator Satya Prakash who have already been granted anticipatory bail as indicated herein above. It is admitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history and has cooperated in the investigation. Thus, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 BNSS.

¶14

In view of above, anticipatory bail is granted to applicant providing that in the event of arrest, applicant Mohammad Athar Siddiqui shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶15

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

¶16

(ii) that 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;

¶17

(iii) that the applicant(s) shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶18

(iv) that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant(s) shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶19

(v) that the applicant(s) shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶20

(vi) that the applicant(s) shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶21

(vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions, benefit of this order would not be available to applicant(s).

¶22

The application stands disposed of .

¶23

Order Date :- 15.4.2025 kvg/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohammad Athar Siddiqui v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Athar Siddiqui v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Karishma Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Satish Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Shyama Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Shyamta Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Saurabh Kumar @ Sajjan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Adarsh Singh @ Yashu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.