SHAMIM AHMAD v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. / PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND ANOTHER
ABAIL/2226/2024 · 2025-01-22
Shree Prakash Singh
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 161166 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 161166 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4445 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2226 of 2024 Applicant :- Shamim Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Nadeem Murtaza,Anjani Kumar Mishra,Devansh Vikram Singh,Sheeran Mohiuddin Alavi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. Counter affidavit filed today by leaned State Counsel is taken on record. The notice has been issued to the complainant/opposite party no. 2 and as per office report, the same has been served but no one is present for the complainant/opposite party no. 2. Heard Sri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Counsel for the State as well as perused the material placed on record. Instant application has been filed with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.167 of 2024, under Section 409 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 27.09.2024, the following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:-
"The applicant has moved the present application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 167/2024, under Section 409 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. It is alleged in the FIR that the applicant, while he was posted as Junior Engineer in Gram Vikas Vibhag on deputation at District Gonda in the Minority Welfare Department, has not provided 357 proposals and dispatch register to the inquiry team. It is alleged that for the said offence, he was already placed under suspension.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a perusal of the FIR shows that as per the letter dated 20.12.2023 written by S.K. Singh, the then District Minority Welfare Officer, those records were handed over to Azhar Hussain who died on 13.09.2022. The applicant is not having the custody of those documents. Only allegation in the FIR is that he has not provided those documents to the investigating officer and it is alleged that this is the irregularity committed by the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant has further invited attention of the Court towards two
letters one written by the Minor Welfare Officer, Gonda dated 27.12.2023 and another letter dated 12.07.2024 written by Joint Director to the Director Minority Welfare, U.P. which show that records were in the custody of Azhar Hussain (deceased). There is nothing on the record to show that records were handed over to the present applicant at any point of time. It is submitted that the applicant is innocent. The applicant has never absconded. He undertakes to cooperate in the trial. Learned AGA on the other hand has opposed the contention and has submitted that in CD No. 9, the complicity of the applicant has been found by the investigating officer. He prays for and is granted two weeks time to file counter affidavit. Issue notice to respondent No.2. List on 28.10.2024. On due consideration to the submission advanced advanced by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the two letters dated 27.12.2023 and 12.07.2024; the applicant is not a previous convict and having no criminal history and also considering the judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020)5 SCC 1 and without entering into the merit of the case, as an interim measure, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Till the next date of listing, it is provided that in the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned. The applicant shall report to the investigating officer within ten days from today. He shall cooperate in the investigation and he will not influence the witness. The accused- applicant will remain present as and when the arresting officer/I.O./S.H.O. concerned call(s) for investigation/interrogation. The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. In case of default, it would be open for the investigating agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection." From perusal of the order dated 27.09.2024, it transpires that the learned State Counsel has failed to demonstrate that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on an interim anticipatory bail after thoroughly considering the merits of the case.
The learned counsel for the State has also failed to submit any fact that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceeding or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Shamim Ahmad till disposal of the trial subject to 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 the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this interim protection.
Order Date :- 22.1.2025 kkv/ Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench