Aslam Khan v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10937 of 2023 Applicant :- Aslam Khan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Suneel Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Heard Sri Suneel Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prem Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the informant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶3The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Complaint Case No.3581 of 2015 (Satish Chandra vs. Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Others), registered under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 IPC at Police Station-Kotwali City, District Mirzapur with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶4As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have purchased the land from Vijay Laxmi, who inherited 1/6th of the property, but she forged the Will deed, as such sold the complete land which belong to the complainant and his other family members.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. He is a bona fide purchaser. The said summoning order dated 15.06.2017 passed by J.M., Mirzapur is without application of mind and cryptic one. Learned counsel has further stated that the criminal history of three cases assigned to the applicant stands explained. The applicant himself has been duped of his hard earned money. It is the co-accused Vijay Laxmi who has committed forgery, if any. The applicant had challenged the said summoning order by filing a petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.6930 of 2020, which is still pending and in light of the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. and Another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 (16) SCC 299, the said protection stood vacated, as such coercive measures have been taken against the applicant.

¶6Several 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. 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.

¶7Per 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.

¶8On 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.

¶9In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant-Aslam Khan be released forthwith in the aforesaid complaint case (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.

¶10It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial. Order Date :- 16.10.2023 Ravi Kant (Krishan Pahal, J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad