Allahabad High Court
Shuyeb Chaudhary vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 June, 2025
Author: Neeraj Tiwari
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:96536
Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 3612 of 2025
Applicant :- Shuyeb Chaudhary
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Tripathi,Shiv Shanker Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prateeyush Kumar Pathak,Rafat Raza Khan
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. P. K. Pathak, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
This anticipatory bail application (under section 482 BNSS) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 154 of 2025, under sections 332(c), 305, 329, 352, 318(4), 338, 336(3), 308(2), 351(2) B.N.S., Police Station Civil Lines, District- Moradabad, during the pendency of investigation.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He further submits that against the assignment deed dated 05.09.2024 a civil suit for cancellation of the same being Original Suit No. 1357 of 2024 (Shuyeb Chaudhary Vs. Haseeb Ur Rahman and another) before the Civil Judge (S.D.) Moradabad has been filed by the applicant. He further submits that after filing of civil suit the present F.I.R. dated 06.03.2025 has been lodged to pressurize the applicant to withdraw the civil suit proceedings. He also pointed out that co-accused persons namely, Arif Chowdhury has been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.04.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 2930 of 2025 and Sajiya Chowdhary and Sumbul Chowdhary have been enlarged on bail by the trial court vide order dated 24.03.2025. Since the role of the applicant is identical to that of co-accused persons who have already been enlarged on bail, the applicant is also entitled for the same relief. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case. In case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.
Per contra, learned counsel for the informant has submitted that applicant has taken full sale consideration and after that has filed civil suit for cancellation of assignment deed, but he could not dispute the fact that said suit was filed prior to filing of the present F.I.R.
Learned AGA has also opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said facts.
Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, they are directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant Shuyeb Chaudhary involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50, 000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
(1) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;
(2) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and
(3) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(4) The applicant shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(5) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.
(6) In case, the applicant misuse the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
(7) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 12.6.2025
AS
