Jamila Khatoon and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

Jamila Khatoon and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail refused (application 'rejected'). Protective directions only: applicants to surrender before the concerned court within two weeks and apply for regular bail, which shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2021 SCC OnLine SC 922); and for two weeks from the order date or until surrender, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicants (Jamila Khatoon and her two sons) facing prosecution in Case Crime No. 204 of 2023 under Sections 420, 406, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Rampur, are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. during pendency of trial.

Court's answer

Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and considering the submissions advanced and the nature and gravity of the accusation, the Court finds no good ground for granting anticipatory bail to the applicants; the anticipatory bail application is rejected and no interference is warranted.

Ratio / Principle

If the applicants surrender before the concerned court within two weeks and apply for regular bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2021 SCC OnLine SC 922).

Key takeaways

For the period of two weeks from the date of the order, or till the time of surrender of the applicants before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.ratio¶¶15
Obiter exposition: the object of Section 438 Cr.P.C. is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the personal vendetta or grudge of a complainant or any other person operating directly or from behind the curtains.obiter¶¶10
Obiter exposition: the discretionary power of grant or refusal of anticipatory bail cannot be put in a straitjacket formula; it must be exercised carefully, with circumspection and on the basis of available material, evaluating factors such as nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct, criminal antecedents, possibility of fleeing justice, apprehension of tampering with witnesses or threat to complainant, and impact of grant on investigation or society, balancing sanctity of individual liberty against the interest of society.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (Court No. 70) — Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:24475 — Hon'ble Deepak Verma, J. — Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 777 of 2025 — Order Date 19.2.2025. Applicants Jamila Khatoon (applicant No. 1, a lady) and her sons Kamar Ali and Mohd. Rijwan sought enlargement on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 204 of 2023, under Sections 420, 406, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Rampur, during pendency of trial. The FIR allegedly records that after taking money the applicants showed forged and fabricated documents claiming ownership of the property and took advance money through cheque; learned counsel urged that the charge sheet had been filed after investigation and that the matter was a civil dispute; learned A.G.A. opposed, submitting prima facie offence was made out. Considering the arguments and the record, and weighing the nature and gravity of the accusation without expressing any opinion on merits, the Court found no good ground for granting anticipatory bail and REJECTED the application. Consequential directions: (i) if the applicants surrender before the concerned court within two weeks and apply for regular bail, the application shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922; (ii) for two weeks from the order date or till surrender before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants. The Court also recited the object of Section 438 Cr.P.C. (avoidance of unnecessary harassment or humiliation to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge) and enumerated the considerations governing the discretionary grant or refusal of anticipatory bail (nature and gravity of accusation, role, conduct, antecedents, flight risk, witness-tampering apprehension, societal impact, balance between individual liberty and interest of society).

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24475

Court No. - 70

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 777 of 2025

Applicant :- Jamila Khatoon And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- R S Dubey,Rajesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicants for enlarging them on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 204 of 2023, under Sections 420, 406, 506 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Rampur, during pendency of trial.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is next submitted that applicant No. 1 is lady and applicants No. 2 and 3 are her sons. It is next argued that the allegation in the FIR is that after taking the money the applicants showed forged and fabricated document claiming the applicants are owner of the property and taken the advance money through cheque. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that no offence is made out and after investigation charge sheet has been filed and it is a civil dispute. In case, the applicants are released on bail, they would not misuse the liberty of bail and would co-operate with the investigation. Applicants have definite apprehension of their arrest by the police.

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that prima facie offence is made out against the applicants. The applicants are not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants may be rejected.

The object of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is that a person should not be unnecessarily harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy personal vendetta or grudge of complainant or any other person operating the things directly or from behind the curtains.

It is well settled that discretionary power conferred by the legislature on this Court cannot be put in a straitjacket formula but such discretionary power either grant or refusal of anticipatory bail has to be exercised carefully in appropriate cases with circumspection on the basis of the available material after evaluating the facts of the particular case and considering other relevant factors (nature and gravity of accusation, role attributed to accused, conduct of accused, criminal antecedents, possibility of the applicant to flee from justice, apprehension of tempering of the witnesses or threat to the complainant, impact of grant of anticipatory bail in investigation or society etc.) with meticulous precision maintaining balance between the conflicting interest, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and interest of society.

Considered the argument raised by counsel for the applicants and perused the record. Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case and considering the submissions advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, I find no good ground for granting anticipatory bail to the applicants in the aforesaid case. No interference is warranted.

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants Jamila Khatoon, Kamar Ali and Mohd. Rijwan , is rejected .

However, if the applicants surrender before the concerned court within two weeks from today and apply for regular bail, the bail application shall be decided expeditiously by the court concerned, in accordance with law laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another , reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 922.

For the period of two weeks from today or till the time of surrender of the applicants before the court below, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

Order Date :- 19.2.2025 RPD

Digitally signed by :- RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad