Mohd. Fayaz Ahmad @ Faizan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37923

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3574 of 2025

Applicant :- Mohd. Fayaz Ahmad @ Faizan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Mishra,Dharmendra Kumar Verma,Piyush Tripathi,Sharad Yadav

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashutosh Singh,Devendra Kumar,Mohd. Shahid Chaudhary,Rudra Pratap Singh,Sushil Kumar Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present bail application has been filed by accused-applicant seeking bail in Case Crime No.159 of 2024, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Vibhuti Khand, District Lucknow.

¶9

In compliance of the earlier order passed by this Court, the Investigating Officer Sri Amit Kumar Singh is present before this Court.

¶10

Upon a specific query put to him, he on the basis of case diary submitted that applicant along with co-accused persons who were running a gang and have hatched a conspiracy by committing forgery in the records of LDA, the plot in question i.e. Plot No.1/124 Vikrant Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow area 270 square meters has been sold to the complainant Ms. Shivani Singh. He has submitted that applicant Mohd. Fayaz Ahmad has not received any amount in his account however, the co-accused has received the amount in his account and that amount has been distributed amongst the accused persons.

¶11

The allegation in the prosecution case is that a Plot No.1/124 Vikrant Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow area 270 square meters

¶12

was purchased by the complainant from Sri Raj Kumar coaccused. It is alleged that she was given an impression that seller Raj Kumar purchased the said plot in the year 2001 from Lucknow Development Authority which was specifically registered in the office of Sub Registrar-II on 12.10.2001. The complainant was introduced to Raj Kumar by the co-accused Mukesh Kumar.

¶13

It is further alleged that for purchasing the aforesaid plot, a loan was applied by her in the ICICI bank and the loan was sanctioned by the bank after conducting the inquiry thereafter a sum of Rs.90,00,000/- (ninety lakh rupees) were transferred by the complainant in the account of Raj Kumar however, after 17.02.2024 she was informed by Mukesh Kumar that some persons are making constructions on the said plot. Receiving this information, she approached the Vibhutikhand police station and informed the police. She also dialed No.112 and was further apprised that one Ajay Singh claiming himself to be the owner of the plot and has also registered F.I.R. against her in P.S. Vibhutikahnd. Later on, the Investigating Officer came to know that Raj Kumar by forged sale deed has sold the plot to complainant while hatching the conspiracy with the co-accused persons.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not received any amount in his account. Applicant is not named in the F.I.R. His name has surfaced in the statement of Kunwar Deepak Singh, the driver of the complainant Shivani Singh. There is no material available on the record to implicate the applicant. The consideration amount in question has been received by co-accused Raj Kumar and not the applicant. Only on the basis of statement of the Kunwar Deepak Singh applicant has been implicated in this case. The offences are triable by magistrate. The charge-sheet in the case has been filed. There is no chance of tampering the evidence. The co-accused Zaheer Ahmad who was assigned the similar role has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

¶15

24.01.2025 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.737 of 2025. Another co-accused namely, Ram Kishore Dutt Tiwari has been granted bail by the learned court below. Applicant claims parity with the bail order of aforesaid co-accused persons namely Zaheer Ahmad and Ram Kishore Dutt Tiwari. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 06.04.2025. Applicant has explained the criminal history of four cases in paragraph 29 of the bail application.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail prayer and have submitted that there is no parity with the bail order of Zaheer Ahmad however, from the records counsel for the complainant is unable to show as to how the role of the applicant is distinct from the role of Zaheer Ahmad, the co-accused.

¶17

On due consideration to the submissions advanced, perusal of the record as also the fact that the applicant is languishing in jail since 06.04.2025, bail order of co-accused Zaheer Ahmad, the role assigned to the present applicant and the fact that there is nothing on record to suggest that any amount has been received by him in his account hence at this stage, this Court is of the view that role of the applicant is similar to that of co-accused Zaheer Ahamd, applicant has explained the criminal history of four cases in paragraph 29 of the bail application and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶19

Let the applicant Mohd. Fayaz Ahmad @ Faizan be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:

¶20

(i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶21

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

¶22

(iii) 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

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

¶24

(v) 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.

¶25

(vi) 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.

¶26

Order Date :- 4.7.2025 Saurabh Yadav/-

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Fayaz Ahmad @ Faizan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Fayaz Ahmad @ Faizan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Aafak Ahamad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Mohit Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Mohd. Sahil Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Govt. Lko

Nirmala Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.