Rashid vs State on 15 April, 2026





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:25720
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 756 of 1989   
 
   Rashid    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
Rishad Murtaza, Anurag Shukla   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
   Reserved on: 30.03.2026 Pronounced on: 15.04.2026 Uploaded on:15.04.2026 
 
   
 
 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the order dated 18.10.1989 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Hardoi in Criminal Misc. Case no.1 of 1988, whereby personal bond of the appellant has been forfeited.

2. Brief facts of the case are that in Case Crime No.5 of 1988 under Sections 302, 394, 411 I.P.C., P.S. Pihani, a Jeep U.S.D. 447 was used in the commission of the offence of murder and in the investigation on 2.2.1988, the said jeep was recovered from village Amar Nagar, P.S. Tandiawan, from the grove of Nitin Kumar. This jeep was originally owned by one Rakesh Kumar. One person claiming himself to be Rakesh Kumar along with one Aziz Ahmad contacted an Advocate Sri S.H.A. Zaidi, practicing at Hardoi in criminal side and the said Aziz Ahmad introduced himself to the said Advocate, telling that the jeep belongs to Rakesh Kumar and Rashid, son of Rahman and he also pointed out that his name is Rakesh Kumar, son of Babu Ram. The said Advocate believing on the statement of Aziz Ahmad, moved the application after getting a Vakalatnama signed by the said Rashid and an application was drafted by himself and signed by Rashid, though he signed it as Rakesh Kumar and the said person also produced the photostat of the registration of the said US.D. No.447 Jeep. These documents were exhibited as Exhibits 3 to 4. The said Advocate obtained the order from the Presiding Officer of the Court of IInd Additional Munsif Magistrate, Hardoi, and filled up the personal bond of the said person, impersonating himself as Rakesh and also signed by the same name, holding himself responsible to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. The jeep was not produced on the order of the court and the said persons also filed the surety bond of one Musahib Ali, son of Sukuru, resident of Rawal, P.S.Tandiawan, which is a village close to village Padri of Rashid, impersonating as Rakesh Kumar. The Advocate also filled up the surety bond of said Musahib Ali (Ext.-5) that he shall stand as a surety to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and he also pledged his tractor U.S.D.2923 as a security of that amount and also filed and affidavit. The photocopy of the registration of the tractor was also filed. Exhibit-1 is the personal bond of Rashid, impersonating as Rakesh Kumar.

3. The Sessions Trial no.246 of 198 was pending before the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi, where this jeep was summoned during the proceedings of the trial and when this jeep was not produced, a notice was given to Rakesh Kumar, son of Babu Ram, at the address noted in the said paper and also to the Advocate Sri Zaidi. Subsequently, the sessions trial was withdrawn to the Sessions Court on a motion of transfer, where also, the said jeep was not produced. Rakesh Kumar appeared and he gave his statement that there is a relationship between the surety of the said jeep and the accused of the Sessions Trial. It was further said that Musahib Ali be summoned. Another happening took place. One Lal Mohamma came forward claiming that he is the owner by transfer from Rakesh Kumar, of the jeep in question. Aziz Ahmad was also summoned because, he was the person who introduced the Advocate, telling that the person Rashid whom he had brought, is Rakesh Kumar. Lal Mohammad is said to have taken this Jeep from Rakesh Kumar on 8.2.1988 while it was given under the orders of the court on 6.2.1988 to the person impersonating as Rakesh Kumar, Rashid. This Rashid is none else, but the nephew of Aziz Ahmad. Lal Mohammad also gave his statement in the court on 30.9.1989 that the photograph on the personal bond, is of Rashid, nephew of Aziz Ahmad. This Lal Mohammad, the second claimant, for ownership of the Jeep, is also the nephew of Aziz Ahmad. One Harish Chandra of the village, was examined, who testified that the photo on the personal bond, is of Rashid, son of Rahman. A notice, therefore, was issued to Rashid, son of Rahman, and his counsel Sri Avadhesh Kapoor, who appeared on 11.10.1989 and inspected the records in the presence of the court and admitted that the photograph, one personal bond, is of Rashid, son of Rahman, and he took time upto 17.10.1989 to file objection. It may be recalled that on 9.5.1989, the Sessions Court forfeited the bond of Musahib Ali. The notice for forfeiture of the bond was also given to Rashid and was personally served on him. Thus the court by the above evidence, prima facie believing the Advocate who identified him and moved the application for release of the jeep before the P.O. of II Additional Munsif Magistrate and also as is the practice prevalent in the judgeship, the bail bonds were accepted by the Magistrate in open court and since the P.O. checked the photograph and tallying it with the face of the person who stood as surety, has no doubt that this practice was duly observed in this case.

4. Mr. Zaidi, Advocate examined himself on oath and he was also cross-examined by the counsel of Rashid. He has no enmity with Rashid. Professionally he moved the said application as he was known to Aziz Ahmad who was in service in Cooperative bank and was under suspension on certain charges and certain criminal cases were also pending which the learned counsel appearing for the State, has apprised the Sessions court.

5.The point relevant in this case, is that Aziz Ahmad who appeared in the Sessions court and is the son of Husaini, resident of Padri, admitted that he purchased the said jeep from Rakesh Kumar. After that he had dis-appeared leaving his nephew Rashid and Lal Mohammad to take care of themselves as well as of his own in this case. What is relevant, is that what has been given in writing by Aziz Ahmad goes to show that the title of Rakesh was passed on to him from Rakesh Kumar. Now the interested persons are Aziz Ahmad and his nephew Lal Mohammad. When this point was detected in this Misc. case, one fine morning Lal Mohammad was set up as another Purchaser, and this fact is also admitted by Aziz Ahmad in his reply dated 17.10.1989. The objection by Rashid, is that though he admits his photograph but wants to make the appellate court to ignore the presumption of law about acceptance of bail bonds by the Presiding Officer, saying in the objection that he did not come to the Court and his photo was affixed though the Advocate Sri Zaidi gave the statement as well as there is a verification by the learned court of the acceptance of the personal bond of Rashid. A person of some status carries conviction when he is supported by documents and Sri Zaidi Advocate cannot be dis-believed. The objection is an eye wash.

6. The said jeep was not produced when demanded by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge and it was also not produced before the Session Court when the case came before it and there was a clear breach of the bond, for which knowingly Rashid, son of Rahman, and Musahib Ali, the sureties, have committed the breach of the bond, calling in the penalty under Section 446, Cr.P.C. of the forfeiture of the bonds. From the side of Musahib Ali, an application had been moved that he be released. He was also an associate of Aziz Ahmad. A notice had already been served on Musahib Ali on 9.5.1988 as well as on Rashid that their bonds had been forfeited and they must show cause.

7. It is the case of the appellant that he never executed the sureties and bonds, therefore, proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked against him. He did not impersonate himself as Rakesh Kumar. It has been further submitted that Section 59 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that the facts exhibiting the contents of documents can be proved by oral evidence and Rashid has denied his signatures on the Vakalatnama, bonds and other papers and in view of the hand-writing expert opinion, it is found that the signature of the appellant is not matched with the signatures on the personal bonds and sureties. It has been further submitted that the appellant did not come to the court nor signed any Vakalatnama.

8. During pendency of this appeal, this Court passed an order on 26.7.2013 directing the Sessions Judge to get signatures of the appellant verified by the hand-writing expert and expenses of the same was directed to be borne by the appellant himself. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the Sessions Judge sent a report of the hand-writing expert and as per the said report dated 21.1.2020, the expert has given opinion that the signatures of the appellant did not match with the signatures put on the bond. On the basis of the aforesaid expert opinion, learned counsel for the appellant has tried to build up his case by arguing that once the signature on the surety bond is not proved, then the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. cannot be continued against the appellant. He further submits that the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. can be initiated against a person who has filed the bonds and sureties by putting his signatures, but in the present case, after the expert opinion, it cannot be said that the appellant impersonated himself as Rakesh Kumar, therefore, the proceedings are liable to be dropped. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgments in the cases of State of Maharashtra vs. Dadamiya Babumiya Sheikh etc. (1972) 3 SCC 85; Iqbal Singh Marwah and another vs. Meenakshi Marwah and another AIR 2005 SC 2119; Ankita Priyadarshini vs. Arpan Saxena (Criminal Misc. Application U/s 379 BNSS No.7 of 2025); Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. and others vs. Ananta Saha and others (2011) 5 SCC 142; Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Ltd. vs. U.P. Financial Corporation and others (2003) 2 SCC 455; O. Bharathan vs. K. Sudhakaran and another (1996) 2 SCC 704; and Sheila Sebastian vs. R. Jawaharaj and another (2018) 7 SCC 581.

9. On the other hand, Sri Piyush Kumar Singh, learned AGA has submitted that the appellant had appeared before the court below and handed over one photograph which has been identified by the Advocate and thereafter bond was executed before the court and he purported himself to be Rakesh Kumar. He further submits that even if signatures of the appellant did not match with the signatures on the surety bond, he cannot be absolved from the criminal liability. It has been further submitted that it is admitted that the photograph of the appellant is affixed on the surety bond, which is filled upon in court in presence of the Advocate. The appellant had appeared physically and if signatures do not match, it does not mean that he had not impersonated himself as Rakesh Kumar.

10. I have heard Sri Anurag Shukla, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Nandesh Verma, appearing for the appellant and Sri Piyush Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State.

11. After going through the record, it is very much relevant to be seen that photograph of the appellant was affixed on the surety bond and he was identified by the counsel. Thereafter, the surety bond was produced before the court and appellant was physically present. Even if the signatures of the appellant on the surety bond do not match, it does not mean that he could not impersonate himself. The Advocate Mr. Zaidi was cross-examined by the counsel of Rashid and he had identified Rashid in the cross-examination, therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn that the appellant was not present physically while giving surety of Rs.50,000/-. The observations of the Presiding Office are sufficient to prima facie establish that the bond was executed by the person present before the court, who is appellant.

12. After the abovementioned discussions, this Court finds that the appellant himself had appeared and impersonated himself as Rakesh Kumar, therefore, the proceedings were drawn in accordance with law. Once it is established that the appellant had physically appeared before the court for giving surety, then it is the appellant and none other will be responsible for the said act and, therefore, proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. is justified. If signatures of the appellant did not match with the signatures on the surety bond, he cannot be absolved from the criminal liability. It is admitted that the photograph of the appellant is affixed on the surety bond, which is filled up in the court in presence of the Advocate. The appellant had appeared physically and if signatures do not match, it does not mean that he had not impersonated himself as Rakesh Kumar.

13. All the judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, whereas this Court has given a categorical finding that it is the appellant who has impersonated himself as Rakesh Kumar while appearing physically before the court and submitted surety bond of Rs.50,000/-. The finding recorded by the District and Sessions Judge, Hardoi needs no interference.

14. This criminal appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

April 15, 2026

Sachin