Mohd. Imran Vs State of Up and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26591

Court No. - 82

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4558 of 2024

Applicant :- Mohd. Imran Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Irshad Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶8

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant- Mohd. Imran in connection with Case Crime No. 05 of 2020, under section 420 IPC, P.S. Cyber Crime P.S. Moradabad, District Moradabad.

¶9

Cyber crime was committed with the informant when on instructions, co-accused had deposited some amount in certain account numbers to get his insurance amount and F.I.R. was lodged against three named accused persons on 15.09.2020 and investigation started and now charge sheet has been submitted in respect of the present applicant.

¶10

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

It is further submitted that the accused applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and he has been falsely treated as accused in the commission of the alleged crime. It is further submitted that mobile number and bank account number of the present applicant

¶12

has not been used in the commission of the crime. It is next submitted that as a matter of fact, he is a mobile shop keeper and mobile sims are sold by him in the name of Nasika communication. It is further submitted that after selling the same, applicant has no concern with the aforesaid sim and during the course of investigation, he was cooperating with the investigation and notice under Section 41-A was given to him by the I.O. It is next submitted that he has no criminal history to his credit and as such, he is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶14

In the present case, the applicant was not arrested by the I.O. He was granted interim protection by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s. 438 Cr.P.C. No. 15365 of 2021 vide order dated 27.01.2022 but however, subsequently for want of prosecution the said application was rejected by the Court. During the course of investigation, his custodial interrogation was never required to the I.O. to complete the investigation and after filing of the charge sheet, there is no rule of law that this will take a ground for denial of anticipatory bail of the accused applicant. It is alleged against the applicant that the offence is punishable with the imprisonment for a maximum period of seven years and he has not misused the liberty given by the I.O. during the course of investigation. The grounds are sufficient.

¶15

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶16

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶17

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the

¶18

applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶19

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of trial in the matter.

¶20

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶21

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶22

(i) 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.

¶23

(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶24

(iii) 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.

¶25

(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶26

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicant in accordance with law.

¶27

Order Date :- 24.2.2025

¶28

Vikram

¶29

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Imran v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Imran v. State of Up 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