Mohammad Yameen vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 479 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mohammad Yameen vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 May, 2025

Author: Vivek Varma

Bench: Vivek Varma

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:70277
 
Court No. - 69
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8841 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Mohammad Yameen
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Zafeer Ahmad
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vinod Kumar Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
 

1. Despite time granted to the counsel for the informant, no counter affidavit has been filed.

2. Heard Ms. Afsana, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Zafeer Ahmad, counsel for the applicant and Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, counsel for the informant as well as Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the material on record.

3. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 24.10.2024 by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The order is quoted herein below:-

"1. Heard Ms. Afsana, Advocate holding brief for Sri Zafeer Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Vinod Kumar Yadav, counsel for the informant; learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No.290 of 2022, under Sections 420, 406, 323, 504, 506, 452, 427 I.P.C., P.S. Swar, District Rampur.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant was agent of the company. He has not misappropriated the amount of informant. The applicant has no concern with the allegation alleged in the F.I.R. During investigation, Investigating Officer served notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet thereafter, the Court has taken cognizance and court issued summon against the applicant. It is next submitted that he will cooperate in the trial proceedings. Instant case is squarely covered under section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would co-operate with the investigation. Applicant has definite apprehension of his arrest by the police.

6. Learned A.G.A. and counsel for the informant are granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks' thereafter.

7. List this case immediately after expiry of the aforesaid period.

8. As an interim protection, till the next date of listing fixed for hearing on this application, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the S.H.O of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

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

(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P./C.P./A.C.P concerned.

(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(v) The applicant shall not pressurized/intimidate the prosecution witness.

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

9. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate/concerned court is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. "

4. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant had furnished bail bonds in terms of interim order dated 24.10.2024 passed by this Court. The applicant is appearing before the concerned court on the dates fixed. It is next contended that the applicant was an agent of the company 'Prayag Infotech High Rise Limited'. The applicant was neither a director nor a senior functionary, who is responsible for a day to day affairs of the company. The applicant is not responsible for the viability of the business model or failure of the company to make good on its promises of higher returns. No money was credited in the account of the applicant. The alleged amount was credited in the account of the company. The bonds of the company as well as receipts of the amount were also issued by the said company. During the course of investigation, the applicant was granted benefit of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. Investigation has been completed. The applicant had co-operated in the investigation. Charge sheet has been submitted. No custodial interrogation is required. The applicant has been summoned by the concerned court. Counsel for the applicant further contends that the maximum sentence provided for the alleged offences is upto seven years. He submits that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773, the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case. In case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

5. Learned A.G.A. as well as counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

6. The Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) has laid down the guidelines with regard to enlargement of an accused on bail. The guidelines provided category/type of offences. One of the category being Category-A are offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less. The Supreme Court in paragraph-3 of the aforesaid judgment has laid down the guidelines that after the filing of the charge sheet/cognizance ordinary the summons are required to be issued permitting the appearance of the accused through Lawyer and the bail applications of the accused persons on appearance are to be decided without the accused being taken into custody or by granting interim bail. A perusal of the aforesaid guidelines would demonstrate that the liberty of an individual has been recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in term of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. It is further to be noted that as per Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also during investigation the liberty of an individual is protected in respect of an offence where the maximum punishment provided is upto seven years.

8. It is not the case of the opposite party that applicant was arrested for the alleged offences during investigation and it is also not the case of the opposite party that the applicant had not co-operated in the investigation. Once no apprehension has been raised with regard to the conduct of the applicant and the applicant has been charge-sheeted and summoned in respect of offence in which punishment provided is upto seven years, then in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the liberty of the individual is required to be protected.

9. It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicant for relief of anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

10. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

11. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the applicant, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant, and the fact that applicant is appearing before the concerned court on the dates fixed; no violation of conditions or misuse of liberty of interim anticipatory bail has been pointed out by learned AGA., the fact that the applicant was neither a director nor a senior functionary, who is responsible for a day to day affairs of the company; no money was credited in the account of the applicant; the alleged amount was credited in the account of the company; the bonds of the company as well as receipts of the amount were also issued by the said company. During the course of investigation, the applicant was granted benefit of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C.; investigation has been completed; the applicant had co-operated in the investigation; no custodial interrogation is required; the applicant has been summoned by the concerned court and the fact that the offences against the applicant are punishable up to seven years and adhering to the guidelines provided in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

12. In the event of arrest, the applicant Mohammad Yameen, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a fresh personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) the applicant shall make himself available on each date fixed in the matter by the court concerned;

(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court;

(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the concerned court.

13. In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

14. The application stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 2.5.2025

Manish Kr