# Mohd. Adeeb Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 683
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-22
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1835 of 2023
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-adeeb-ahmad-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50700
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 156(3), 482 & 438 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 354,
420, 467, 468, 471, 504 & 506 -
Registration Act, 1908- Section 58-
Anticipatory Bail Application - FIR - offence of
Cheating, Forgery, Criminal Intimidation, and
Assault on Woman - Anticipatory bail was
sought, claiming innocence and misuse of legal
provisions - court finds that, it is settled law
that the principle of parity does not apply to
rejection of bail application or to that of
anticipatory bail application - Moreover, while
dismissing the anticipatory bail application of
the aforesaid co-accused the coordinate bench
has not taken into consideration aforesaid
aspects of the matter - held, court not inclined
to reject the anticipatory bail application of
applicant on ground of parity - Having
considered
the
aforesaid
facts
and
circumstances of the case and also keeping in
view the fact that the applicant has no criminal
history and without making any observations
which may affect outcome of the case, Court of
view that aforesaid facts are sufficient for
making out a case for granting anticipatory bail
to applicant - Anticipatory bail application is
accordingly, allowed.(Para - 15, 16, 17, 18)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

8 All. Mohd. Adeeb Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
683

25. Therefore, the second limb of the
preliminary objection, that there is no real
apprehension of the applicants' arrest, is
also rejected.

26. The application requires to be
considered on its merits.

27. The learned A.G.A prays for and
is grated two weeks' time to file a counter
affidavit. One week's time thereafter shall
be available to the applicant for filing
rejoinder affidavit, if he so desires.

28. List this case in the week
commencing 04.09.2023.

29. Having considered the aforesaid
facts and circumstances of the case and
keeping and view the fact that the
complaint lodged in the year 2019 allege
embezzlement of Rs. 200 crores; that after
enquiry, the S.I.T. found that the total
disbursal of scholarship to students of the
Institutes in question was Rs. 58 crores;
that the FIR alleges wrongful drawl of
scholarship in respect of two students to the
tune of approximately 2.25 lakhs; that it
appears that the amount was actually paid
to the students through bank-drafts, and
when the students did not continue with
their studies in the Institution in question,
the amount was repaid to the Department;
that as per the averments made in the F.I.R.,
enquiry has already been completed and all
the documentary and other evidence have
already been collected, and that the
applicants are the Chairman of the Society
running the educational institution and an
Office Secretary of the Institution and they
have no criminal history and Registrar of
the Institution has been granted anticipatory
bail by this Court, I am of the view that
pending final disposal of the instant
anticipatory bail application the applicants
are also entitled to be granted interim
anticipatory bail. As such, as an interim
measure, it is directed that till the next date
of listing, in the event of arrest / appearance
of applicants before the learned Trial Court,
they
shall
be
released
on
interim
anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime
on furnishing a personal bond and two
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). The applicant will co-operate with
the investigation.

(ii) The applicant will 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 will not leave
India without the previous permission of
the court;

(iv) The applicant will appear before
the trial court on each date fixed unless
personal presence is exempted.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 683
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1835
of 2023
(U/s 438 Cr.P.C)

Mohd. Adeeb Ahmad ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
684 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Abhishek Srivastava, Vinay Kumar Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A. , Ashwani Kumar Dwivedi

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 156(3), 482 & 438 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 354,
420, 467, 468, 471, 504 & 506 -
Registration Act, 1908- Section 58-
Anticipatory Bail Application - FIR - offence of
Cheating, Forgery, Criminal Intimidation, and
Assault on Woman - Anticipatory bail was
sought, claiming innocence and misuse of legal
provisions - court finds that, it is settled law
that the principle of parity does not apply to
rejection of bail application or to that of
anticipatory bail application - Moreover, while
dismissing the anticipatory bail application of
the aforesaid co-accused the coordinate bench
has not taken into consideration aforesaid
aspects of the matter - held, court not inclined
to reject the anticipatory bail application of
applicant on ground of parity - Having
considered
the
aforesaid
facts
and
circumstances of the case and also keeping in
view the fact that the applicant has no criminal
history and without making any observations
which may affect outcome of the case, Court of
view that aforesaid facts are sufficient for
making out a case for granting anticipatory bail
to applicant - Anticipatory bail application is
accordingly, allowed.(Para - 15, 16, 17, 18)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ishwar Dass Jain Vs Sohan Lal, (2000) 1 SCC
434

2. Kamlesh & anr. Vs St. of Raj. & anr., 2019
SCC OnLine SC 1822

3. K. S. Vidyanadam Vs Vairavan, (1997) 3 SCC
1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Abhishek Srivastava, the
learned counsel for the applicant as well as
Sri Rajiv Kumar Verma, the learned
Additional
Government
Advocate
appearing on behalf of the State and Sri
Sudhir Kumar Pandey holding brief of Sri
Ashwani Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate has
put in appearance and filed vakalatnama on
behalf of the informant, which is taken on
record.

2. The instant application has been
filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory
bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.897 of
2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,
504, 506, 354 I.P.C., registered at Police
Station Kotwali City, District Hardoi.

3. The aforesaid case has been
registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged
on
17.12.2019
against
four
persons,
including the applicant in furtherance of an
application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.,
stating that the informant and her daughter
had agreed to sell an immovable property
to co-accused Mahmood Alam for an
agreed consideration of Rs.45,00,000/-.
Mahmood
Alam
paid
a
sum
of
Rs.10,00,000/- through a cheque dated
12.06.2019 and after receipt of the amount,
registered
agreement
was
executed
regarding
sell
of
the
property
on
16.06.2019 but the informant was not
allowed to read the contents of the
agreement and merely this much was asked
by Registrar as to whether she has received
the earnest money of Rs.10,00,000/-. When
the co-accused Mahmood Alam did not pay
the balance amount of sale consideration,
the
informant
entered
into
another
agreement with some other person to sell
the same property for a higher sale
consideration of Rs.48,00,000/- and she
executed the sale deed dated 18.08.2019 in
respect of the same property. The F.I.R.
alleges that on the very next day i.e. on
19.08.2019, the other accused persons,
including the applicant, who are sons of co-
8 All. Mohd. Adeeb Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
685
accused Mahmood Alam threatened and
misbehaved with the informant and her
daughter. It is mentioned in the F.I.R. that
on 21.08.2019 the informant had lodged an
online complaint on Jansunwai Portal but
the Sadar Chowki In-chargesubmitted a
wrong
report
and
disposed
of
the
complaint.

4. The learned counsel for the
applicant has submitted that in para 22 of
the affidavit filed in support of the
application it has been stated that coaccused Mahmood Alam has already filed a
suit for specific performance of contract
bearing Original Suit No.190 of 2019, in
the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Hardoi and the application under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was lodged by the
informant five days after filing of the
aforesaid suit.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of
the anticipatory bail-application it has been
contended that the applicant is innocent, he
has no criminal history and he has falsely
been implicated in the present case.

6. The learned A.G.A. has opposed
the prayer for bail on the ground that
earlier the applicant had approached this
court by filing an application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.1709 of 2021,
which was disposed off leaving it open
for the applicant appears to applies for
bail within 30 days and it was directed
that the prayer shall be considered and
decided in accordance with law. He has
submitted that since the applicant has not
surrendered before learned trial court his
anticipatory bail cannot be entertained. It
has also been submitted that the nonbailable warrant has already been issued
against all the accused persons, although
the date of issuance of warrant has not
been mentioned in the instructions of the
learned A.G.A.

7. Kamlesh and another versus
State of Rajasthan and another, 2019
SCC OnLine SC 1822, was an appeal
filed against an order passed by the High
Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur rejecting
the application for anticipatory bail only
on the ground that petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C., praying for quashing of FIR,
has already been rejected. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that: -

"5.We are of the view that the order
of the High Court cannot be sustained.
High Court ought to have considered the
application on merits. The fact that
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was
dismissed
for
quashing
was
not
conclusive and could not be the reason
for rejecting the application."

8. Therefore, the mere rejection of
an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
filed by the applicant will not be a ground
for
rejecting
his
anticipatory
bail
application and the application has to be
considered and decided on its merits
taking into consideration all the relevant
factors, including nature of allegations
and the material relied upon.

9. The allegations leveled in the F.I.R.
are that the informant had entered into a
registered agreement to sell her property to
the
applicant's
father
-
co-accused
Mahmood Alam on 16.06.2019. She claims
that as per her understanding the period
during which the purchaser was required to
pay the balance sale consideration, was one
month, whereas the period mentioned in the
agreement is one year. However, the
informant is not an illiterate person and she
had
signed
the
agreement
and
had
686 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
presented it before the Sub-registrar, who
made the requisite endorsements under
Section 58 of the Indian Registration Act
regarding admission of execution of the
agreement by the informant and admission
of receipt of consideration by her. In
Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal, (2000) 1
SCC 434, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that There is a presumption of the
correctness of the endorsement made by the
Sub-Registrar under Section 58 of the
Registration Act.

10. Therefore, the allegations leveled
in the F.I.R. appear to be against the
provisions of law.

11. The informant claims that when
the co-accused Mahmood Alam did not pay
her
the
balance
amount
of
sale
consideration, she executed a sale deed of
the property in question in favour some
other person on 18.08.2019. The informant
did not send any notice to the purchaser
demanding performance of his obligations
under the registered agreement dated
16.06.2019. Even if the informant was
under a misunderstanding regarding the
period mentioned in the agreement for
payment of balance consideration was one
year, she could not have simply ignored the
registered agreement without seeking its
cancellation by the Court. In K. S.
Vidyanadam v. Vairavan, (1997) 3 SCC
1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
reaffirmed the well settled principle of law
that in the case of agreement of sale
relating to immovable property, time is not
of the essence of the contract unless
specifically provided to that effect.

12. The informant has not initiated
any proceedings for specific performance
of the agreement or for cancellation of
agreement and she has executed the sale
deed in breach of conditions of the
registered agreement without the same
having been cancelled. The informant has
not
even
refunded
the
amount
of
Rs.10,00,000/- paid by the applicant's
father
under
the
agreement
dated
16.06.2019.

13. The aforesaid facts prima facie
make out a civil wrong committed by the
informant herself and it appears that she is
abusing the process of law by filing an
F.I.R. against the purchaser and his sons.
The aforesaid facts evident from the F.I.R.
itself certainly call for interference by this
court for protecting the personal liberty of
the applicant.

14. It is also relevant to notice that it
is stated in the F.I.R. that the police had
conducted an enquiry pursuant to the
earlier complaint lodged by the informant
on Jansunwai Portal and had disposed of
the same without lodging an F.I.R., which
appears to be the right course that was
adopted by the Police.

15. The learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant has submitted that
the anticipatory bail application of the coaccused Mohd. Muzammil Ahmad has been
rejected
by
means
of
an
order
dated21.04.2022, passed by this court in
Criminal
Misc.
Anticipatory
Bail
Application No.340 of 2022.

16. So far as the question of rejection
of the anticipatory bail application of the
co-accused Mohd. Muzammil Ahmad is
concerned, it is settled law that the
principle of parity does not apply to
rejection of bail application or to that of
anticipatory bail application. Moreover,
while dismissing the anticipatory bail
application of the aforesaid co-accused the
8 All. Mata Pher Rawat Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
687
coordinate bench has not taken into
consideration the aforesaid aspects of the
matter. Therefore I am not inclined to reject
the anticipatory bail application of the
applicant on the ground of parity.

17. Having considered the aforesaid
facts and circumstances of the case and also
keeping in view the fact that the applicant
has no criminal history 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.

18. In view of the above, the
anticipatory
bail
application
of
the
applicant - Mohd. Adeeb Ahmad is
allowed. In the event of arrest /
appearance of applicant - before the
S.H.O. / the Trial Court in the aforesaid
case, he shall be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond and two
sureties,
to
the
satisfaction
of
S.H.O./Court concerned.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 687
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 2611 of 2023

Mata Pher Rawat ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Applicant:
Avinash Kumar Srivastava, Sunil Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Sections 376 - Protection of Children from
Sexual offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 -
Sections 5 & 6 - Bail Application - FIR -
offence
of
Rape
-
Charge-sheet
-
Bail
application - plea taken that, Infant child of 2
years while sleeping on cot had received injury
on her private part by iron nail and it is not the
case of rape - no opinion of sexual assault -
prosecution case is not supported by medical
report - held, perusing record and also
considering nature of allegations, arguments
advanced by learned counsel for parties, it is
evident that medical report indicates that private
part of victim was ruptured and vaginal bleeding
is found, summary discharge report also
indicates that the victim received serious injuries
on her private part that is why she was referred
for surgery, crime appears to be very serious as
infant of about 20 months who was sleeping
alone was raped by applicant and only minor
contradictions in St.ments of P.W.1, P.W.-2 and
P.W.-3 will not help applicant, Court do not find
it to be a fit case for grant of bail - accordingly,
Bail application is rejected.(Para - 10)

Bail Application Disposed of. (E-11)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.)

1. This is the second bail application.

2. The first bail application of the
applicant
was
rejected
for
want
of
prosecution by Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam
Khan, J, in Criminal Misc Bail Application
No. 14242 of 2021 vide order dated
05.09.2022.

3. Heard Shri Avinash Kumar
Srivastava, learned counsel for the accusedapplicant as well as Shri Rajesh Kumar
Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State
assisted by Ms. Divya Verma, Brief Holder
for the State and perused the record.

4. This bail application has been filed
seeking release of the accused/applicant