Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Shakil vs State Of U.P. on 18 December, 2023
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:239366
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13983 of 2023
Applicant :- Mohd. Shakil
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shailendra Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Satyendra Kumar Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Shakil Ahmad, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.0153 of 2023 registered under Sections 420, 406, 323, 504, 506, 452 and 427 IPC at Police Station- Jaitpura, District Kashi (Commissionerate Varanasi) with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have taken Saries for sale from the firm of the informant and as such had issued certain cheques for realization of the said amount, which were dishonored. The said amount of dishonored cheques was Rs.25,29,358/- which was issued by the co-accused person Mohd. Shahid, as such the applicant and other family members are stated to have duped the informant of his hard earned money.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is not a partner in the said proprietor firm. The main accused is Mohd. Shahid who had issued cheques to the informant. The case of Negotiable Instruments Act has been converted under I.P.C. by the informant. The case of the applicant is at a different footing to Mohd. Shahid who had issued the said cheques.
6. 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. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
7. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
8. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
9. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Mohd. Shakil be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(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;
(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
10. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
Order Date :- 18.12.2023
Ravi Kant
(Krishan Pahal, J.)
