Feroz Shami vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 205 of 2024

Feroz Shami .....Applicant(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Pawan Kumar Singh, Mohd. Nafees Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A.

¶4

Court No. - 13

¶5

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶6

Heard Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. Kamlesh Kumari, the learned AGA for the State.

¶7

On 09.12.2024, after hearing learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State, a coordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following order:

¶8

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

¶9

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 251 of 2024, under sections 409 of IPC P.S.- Sandila District -Hardoi.

¶10

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter due to ulterior motive. He submits that the applicant is Technical Assistant on contract basis and he was never involved in committing offence. He added that inspection was done of the work of Lumamau Road to Jhabar Drain, Chak Marg and certain recovery has been imposed upon the applicant including the other coaccused persons which is infact the civil liability. He added that infact the work was not completed and in between the inspection was done and therefore, shortcomings were found by the authorities and inadvertently, the recovery has been imposed and first information report has been lodged against the applicant including other co-accused persons for committing offence. Adding his arguments, he submits that in fact no misappropriation has ever been done or any breach of trust has ever been committed and the applicant has no involvement in the present matter. He also added that the applicant is

¶11

NABAIL No. 205 of 2024

¶12

2

¶13

cooperating with the investigation proceedings. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that co-accused Ankita Dixit having similar role has been granted benefit of anticipatory bail application vide order dated 5.11.2024 in CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2484 of 2024 and he also undertakes that he would always cooperate with the trial proceedings. He also added that there is acute apprehension that the applicant be arrested by the police thus, submission is that he may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶14

On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the submissions aforesaid and submits that the applicant is named in the first information report and there are ample evidence against him that he has committed offence as such, he is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

¶15

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, till the next date of listing, the present applicant- Feroz Shami shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶17

(ii) that 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;

¶18

(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶19

(iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶20

(v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶21

(vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶22

(vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶23

Let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2, returnable at an early date.

¶24

Steps be taken within a week.

¶25

If steps are taken, office shall proceed accordingly.

¶26

List/put up this matter in third week of January, 2025.

¶27

In the meantime, the State as well as opposite party no. 2 may file their counter affidavits."

¶28

NABAIL No. 205 of 2024

¶29

3

¶30

Office has reported that notice issued to the opposite party No.2 stands served but the opposite party No.2 has not filed any counter affidavit.

¶31

The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of material collected during investigation.

¶32

The learned A.G.A. did not point out any violation of the conditions of interim anticipatory bail by the applicant. Nothing has come to light which may persuade this court to take a view, other than the view taken at the time of granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶33

In view of above, the interim order dated 09.12.2024 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed in terms of the aforesaid interim order.

¶34

September 23, 2025

¶35

-Amit K-

¶36

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶37

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

Feroz Shami v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Feroz Shami v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

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

Mohd. Haneef Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Umashankar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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

Sudhir Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Saurabh Jain vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ikbaal vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.