Mahmood Akhtar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2731 of 2023 Applicant :- Mahmood Akhtar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shamshad Ahmad,Mohammad Shahzad Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶1Heard Sri Mohammad Shahzad Ahmad, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Anant Pratap Singh, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.

¶2The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.302 of 2020, under Sections 409 and 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Mahanagar, District Lucknow.

¶3The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 21.07.2020 against four persons, not including the applicant, alleging that the informant had made investments in the business of M/s Zeal Ifracon Private Limited and India Homes between January, 2016 to July, 2018 but the cheques given to him towards return of the investments were returned by the Bank unpaid.

¶4In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail-application, it has been contended that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶5The applicant's involvement in another case has been disclosed in para 31 of the affidavit in which he has already been granted anticipatory bail.

¶6Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has absolutely no concern with the Company in which the informant had made investment and he has been implicated because he happens to be the elder brother of co-accused Mohammad Shahid.

¶7The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶8Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant is neither named in the FIR nor does he hold any position in the Company in which the informant had made investments and that he has already been granted anticipatory bail in another case of similar nature and without making any observations which may affect the outcome of the case, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶9In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant-Mohammad Akhtar before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:

(i). That the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted;

(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 pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. Order Date :- 29.11.2023 Renu/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench