Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Tanzeem Ali vs State Of U.P. on 28 April, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4005 of 2023
Applicant :- Mohammad Tanzeem Ali
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- M J Akhtar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Uma Shanker Tiwari, counsel for the applicant, Sri R.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.644 of 2002, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 3/12 of The Passport Act, Police Station Chhajlet, District Moradabad, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant got a valid passport issued in his name in the year 1992 and had applied for its renewal in the year 2002 after the expiry of the validity period of ten years. It transpired at the passport office that the applicant is stated to have tried to get another passport by filing an application on 24.11.1994 at the passport office in the name of Syed Tanveer Ali s/o Syed Mussarraf Ali, as such the FIR was instituted against him on 08.11.2022 at the time he applied for the renewal of his valid passport.
5. Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that the applicant is a bona fide person and has travelled abroad on his genuine passport and has never misused it. The application, if any, has been moved by the agent who is involved in issuing of the passport. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The applicant has no reason to apply for another passport with a fictitious name as he already had a valid passport. Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that the final report (charge-sheet) has already been submitted against the applicant and he had challenged the said final report (charge-sheet) by filing a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. in the year 2003 and this Court was pleased to stay the proceedings. The said petition filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed on 30.03.2017. The applicant has not misused any process of court and is ready to cooperate in trial. The applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.
6. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the applicant has already relinquished the opportunity granted to him and even his petition was dismissed in the year 2017 and is not cooperating in trial.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the paragraph 43(3) of the judgment dated 05.04.2021 passed by this Court in Shivam vs. State of U.P. and Another, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
8. The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected.
9. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.
(Krishan Pahal, J.)
Order Date :- 28.4.2023
Ravi Kant
