Mohd.Haleem Qurashi vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Naqvi, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present FIR has been lodged maliciously and vexatiously as it is alleged that Rs.8,00,000/ was advanced to the applicant which has not been returned. It is also contended that at the worst it is a civil liability. It is finally contended that the present FIR is in retaliation to the earlier FIR filed by the applicant u/s 341, 347, 379, 467, 468, 506 and 120B IPC in Case Crime No.284 of 2012 against the informant.

Sri Sukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant submitted that in view of the aforesaid monetary transaction, the applicants had handed over the truck to the informant as security so that the same could be forfeited in case of nonpayment.

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application.

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.

Let the applicant Mohd. Haleem Qurashi, involved in Case Crime No.282 of 2012, u/s 419, 420, 406, 467, 468 IPC, P.S. Ghurpur, district Allahabad be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

(i)The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

(iii)The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.