Mohd. Kaifi Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2976 of 2023 Applicant :- Mohd. Kaifi Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanat Singh,Sudhir Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶1Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Anant Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. 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. 532 of 2021, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Gudamba, District Lucknow.

¶3The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 29.12.2021 against the applicant and his brother Afzal Ahmad, stating that on 04.10.2017, an unregistered agreement was executed between the informant and the accused persons regarding purchase of some immovable property and the informant paid Rs. 20 lakhs to the accused persons in various installments and Rs. 30 lakhs was agreed to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale deed but the sale deed was not executed by them. When the informant exerted pressure on the accused persons, a cheque for Rs. 18,45,000/- was handed over to him which was 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. The applicant's involvement in another case has been disclosed in para 19 of the affidavit, in which he has already been granted bail.

¶5The learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail but he could not dispute the aforesaid aspects of the matter.

¶6Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the dispute is regarding non refund of money paid under an unregistered agreement to purchase immovable property; that the cheque given towards return of the money paid under the agreement had been returned by the bank unpaid and, therefore, the present F.I.R. prima facie appears to be barred by the provision of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 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.

¶7In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant-Mohd. Kaifi Ahmad 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; (Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) Order Date :- 20.12.2023 Preeti. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench