Dismissed¶18

Jiyad Khan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Jul 2025ABAIL/9745/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court anticipatory bail rejected Section 438 CrPC; applicants Jiyad Khan, Manish Kumar Singh, Mohd./Md Aasim Iqbal; Case Crime No. 28 of 2024; Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC (cheating, forgery); Police Station Munderwa, District Basti; interim anticipatory bail orders dated 23.10.2024, 04.10.2024, 25.09.2024 vacated; charge sheet dated 05.03.2025; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694 relied on; decided 15.7.2025; neutral citation 2025:AHC:113708.

What did the court decide?

The submission of charge sheet dated 05.03.2025 demonstrates the complicity of the applicants in commission of the alleged offence. ¶14

Jiyad Khan vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113708

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9745 of 2024 Applicant :- Jiyad Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Agrahari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. WITH

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9832 of 2024 Applicant :- Md Aasim Iqbal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Agrahari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. WITH

¶5

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9491 of 2024 Applicant :- Manish Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Agrahari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶7

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

¶8

The present application has been moved on behalf of applicants namely Jiyad Khan, Manish Kumar Singh and Mohd. Aasim Iqbal seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 28 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., Police Station Munderwa, District Basti, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶9

Vide order dated 23.10.2024, 04.10.2024 and 25.09.2024 co-

¶10

ordinate Bench of this Court had granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicants.

¶11

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. It has further been submitted that no coercive process has been issued against the applicants so far. Learned counsel further argued that the the applicants have no concerned with the alleged offence. It was also submitted that applicants undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶12

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

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail. Learned A.G.A. opposed the anticipatory bail and argued that credible evidence has been collected during the investigation, which has culminated in submission of charge sheet dated 05.03.2025.

¶14

Perusal of the record shows that the applicants were granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 23.10.2024, 04.10.2024 and 25.09.2024. The charge sheet has been submitted on 05.03.2025 demonstrating the complicity of the applicants in commission of alleged offence. In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of

¶15

accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶16

In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, no case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶17

Interim order, if any stands vacated.

¶18

The anticipatory bail application Jiyad Khan, Manish Kumar Singh and Mohd. Aasim Iqbal is rejected.

¶19

Order Date :- 15.7.2025 S.Ali

¶20

Digitally signed by :- SHAUKAT ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jiyad Khan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jiyad Khan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Shankar vs State of U.P.

Dhyanpal Alias Meenu vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Kumar and Another vs State of U.P.

Subhash Chandra Kashyap vs State of Up and Another

Rammilan vs State of U.P. and Another

Karan vs State of Up Others