Allahabad High Court
Yakin Khan And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 May, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:118511
Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1182 of 2023
Applicant :- Yakin Khan And 4 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Kameshwar Singh,Sudhanshu Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record.
3. Heard Sri Kameshwar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Nitin Kesharwani, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
4. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No.399 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, District- Banda, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
5. As per prosecution story, the applicants are stated to have usurped an amount of Rs.62,72,000/- of the informant and are stated to have returned only Rs.7,50,000/- through bank transfer and the cheque of Rs.10 lakh given to the informant was bounced.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the case of Negotiable Instruments Act has been converted into FIR by the informant. No case has been filed under the N.I. Act. Learned counsel has stated that questionnaire has been filed with respect to applicant no.2 and there is another person with the same name who resides in another village, as such the criminal history has been wrongly assigned to the applicant no.2 as is evident from Annexure No.SA-1 filed with the supplementary affidavit in court today. The other applicants have no criminal history to their credit. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they have co-operated in the investigation and are 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 applicants.
8. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are 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 applicants 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 applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Yakin Khan, Yakoob Khan, Ayub Khan and Yameen Khan be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i). that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii). that the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;
(iii). that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v). that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi). that the applicants 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 below 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.
[Krishan Pahal, J.]
Order Date :- 24.5.2023/ Vikas
