Allowed

Gufran Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2025BAIL/3456/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, allowed the bail application of Gufran Ahmad. The Court observed that the applicant was implicated solely on the basis of a bank manager's report in a case regarding unlisted cash deposit and allowed bail subject to surety conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions regarding attendance and record maintenance.

Gufran Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Money Laundering | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23355

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3456 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Gufran Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Amar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of State and perused the record.

¶7

This first bail application has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.06 of 2025 under Section 409 IPC, P.S. Maharajganj Tarain, District Balrampur.

¶8

As per contents of FIR which has been lodged against unidentified Bank personnel, allegation levelled is that Rs. 28,000/- was deposited by the informant in the bank concerned which was not reflected in the account.

¶9

It is submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that he is not nominated in the FIR and his name has been introduced only on the basis of report submitted by the Branch Manager indicating the applicant as one of the person who was working as Cashier on the said date. It is submitted that the aspect is required to be considered during internal assessment of the registers as well as all the persons who were connected with the deposit of money on the said date in the Branch and liability cannot be solely fixed from the applicant himself. It is submitted that applicant is under incarceration since 23.02.2025 with previous criminal history of one case being explained.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer for bail application with the submission that applicant has been taken into custody on the basis of report submitted by the Bank Manager indicating that it was the applicant who was functioning as Cashier on the said date and is responsible. It is, however, admitted that applicant's previous criminal history has been explained.

¶11

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 has specifically held that bail is to be a norm and an under-trial is not required to be in jail for ever pending trial. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are as under :-

¶12

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty."

¶13

"27. This Court, time and again, has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It has also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution."

¶14

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, at this stage it appears that FIR has been lodged against unknown bank official and applicant's name has been nominated only on the basis of reports submitted by the Branch Manager. The aspect of applicant being solely responsible for the aforesaid non-credit of cash deposited would be subject matter of evidence during the course of trial. Another aspect indicating mens rea of the applicant would also be required to be considered by Trial Court. The applicant is under incarceration since 23.02.2025 with previous criminal being explained.

¶15

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction, nature of supporting evidence, prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, reformative theory of punishment and considering larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case of bail.

¶16

Let applicant, Gufran Ahmad , involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶17

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence

¶18

when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶19

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶22

Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Satish

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gufran Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gufran Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Faiyaz Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Raju Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Anuj Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ranjeet Pandey vs State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Civil Secretariat

Kishu Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Another

Yawar Ali Khan Nanhan Zariwala Mohammed Ali Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another