SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Niyaz Ahmad vs State Of U.P. on 31 January, 2020


?Court No. – 1


Applicant :- Niyaz Ahmad

Opposite Party :- State of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Alam

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Heard Sri Mohd. Alam, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri A.R.Chaurasia, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is father-in-law of the complainant and has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of the said relationship. He further submitted that the marriage between the son of the applicant, namely, Nizam Ahmad and the complainant was solemnized on 10.12.2015. No specific allegation has been levelled against the applicant and only general allegation has been levelled against the applicant. The present FIR has been lodged against the applicant just to malign his image in the society. The applicant has no other reported criminal antecedent.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation and the fact that he has no criminal antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

In the event of arrest of the applicant-Niyaz Ahmad involved in Case Crime No.78 of 2017, under Sections 498A, 323, 313, 319, 504, 506, 494 I.P.C. and Section 3/4/6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Phoolpur, District Azamgarh, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police office as and when required;

(ii) 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 office;

(iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order independently without being prejudice by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

The applicant is directed to produce a certified copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

The case of the applicant is distinguishable from the husband, namely, Nizam Ahmad of the complainant.

Order Date :- 31.1.2020/NS



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation