Allowed¶16

Maqsood Aleem v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 May 2025CRLA/4508/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail granted by Allahabad High Court; appeal under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 allowed; rejection of anticipatory bail by Special Judge SC/ST Jaunpur set aside in effect; Case Crime No. 126 of 2018, P.S. Kheta Sarai, District Jaunpur; Sections 420, 504, 506, 120-B, 352 IPC and Section 3(1)(Da) SC/ST Act; alleged visa-for-Saudi-Arabia cheating of Rs. 35,000/-; charge-sheet submitted; non-bailable warrant of 2021; bail on personal bond and two sureties with standard conditions; breach permits coercive action or cancellation; appellant Maqsood Aleem; decided November 19, 2025 by Anil Kumar-X, J.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to the appellant Maqsood Aleem on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (i)-(v) recorded in the judgment.

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted to the appellant Maqsood Aleem on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (i)-(v) recorded in the judgment.

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant Maqsood Aleem is entitled to anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 126 of 2018, such that this appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 should be allowed and the trial court's order dated 24.02.2025 rejecting anticipatory bail set aside.

¶9

Court's answer

Having considered the allegations against the appellant, the Court found the case fit for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Anticipatory bail was granted to the appellant Maqsood Aleem on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions: (i) no tampering with evidence during trial; (ii) no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses; (iii) appearance before the trial court on dates fixed unless presence exempted; (iv) no commission of similar offences; and (v) no inducement, threat or promise to dissuade any person acquainted with the facts from disclosing them to the Court or police, or to tamper with evidence.

¶16

Key takeaways

Upon breach of any of the bail conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for securing the accused's appearance or to cancel the bail granted.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Anil Kumar-X, J.), by judgment dated November 19, 2025, allowed Criminal Appeal No. 4508 of 2025 preferred under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by Maqsood Aleem against the order dated 24.02.2025 of the Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Jaunpur rejecting his anticipatory bail application (Anticipatory Bail Application No. 97 of 2025) arising out of Case Crime No. 126 of 2018 under Sections 420, 504, 506, 120-B, 352 IPC and Section 3(1)(Da) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kheta Sarai, District Jaunpur. Considering the allegations (an alleged payment of Rs. 35,000/- in 2015 towards a Saudi Arabia visa, with the F.I.R. lodged in 2017, charge-sheet submitted and a non-bailable warrant issued in 2021), the Court held the case fit for grant of anticipatory bail and directed release on a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions of non-tampering with evidence, non-intimidation of prosecution witnesses, appearance before the trial court on dates fixed, abstention from similar offences, and no inducement, threat or promise to dissuade witnesses; on breach of any condition, the court concerned may take coercive action for appearance or cancel the bail.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4508 of 2025

¶3

Maqsood Aleem

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Anil Kumar Dubey, Chandra Bhan Dubey
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 87

¶7

HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for appellant, Sri R.K. Singh, learned AGA for State and perused the record.

¶9

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant, with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the anticipatory bail rejection order dated 24.02-2025 passed by the court of Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Jaunpur in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 97 of 2025 (Maqsood Aleem Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 126 of 2018, under Sections 420, 504, 506, 120-B, 352 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da) of SC/ST Act, at Police Station - Kheta Sarai, District - Jaunpur.

¶10

Learned counsel for appellants submitted that a false allegation has been made against him by the informant alleging that the appellant deceived him a total amount of Rs. 35,000/- by assuring him to get a visa for Saudi Arabia. The version of the F.I.R. itself indicates that the said amount i.e. Rs. 35,000/was transferred in the account of the appellant in the year 2015 and the F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2017. The allegation regarding the money which was transferred by the informant to the appellant is the sole allegation against the appellant. No evidence was collected by the I/O to show that what the appellant did further after receiving the money from which it can be concluded that the alleged money was taken for providing a visa. The appellant is entitled for anticipatory bail and he shall be granted interim bail till the disposal of the anticipatory bail application.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application and has submitted that

¶12

CRLA No. 4508 of 2025

¶13

¶14

the alleged amount of Rs. 35,000/- was transferred in the account of the appellant. It was further stated that non-bailable warrant has been issued against the appellant in the year 2021 therefore the appellant is not entitled for bail. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that charge-sheet in the instant case had been submitted by the police.

¶15

Considering the aforesaid allegation against the appellant, this Court finds that this case is fit to grant anticipatory bail.

¶16

The appellant -Maqsood Aleem shall be on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶20

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶21

(v) The appellant 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.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall be at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for appearance of the accused or to cancel the bail granted.

¶23

November 19, 2025 M.S. Ansari

¶24

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- MOHD SAQIB ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Maqsood Aleem v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maqsood Aleem v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhola @ Munnesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Pawan Kumar Bind vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Deepchand Kushwaha vs State of U.P. and Another

Saleem vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajaram vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Vivek and Another vs State of Up and Another