High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Titter @ Moh. Farukh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Akansha Pathak,Rakesh Kumar Srivastava,Savitri Arya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Hayan Hasan Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

1. Heard Ms. Akansha Pathak and Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Rafiya Farooqui, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mohd. Hayan Hasan, Advocate who has filed 'Vakalatnama' on behalf of informant / complainant.

2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 30.11.2024 in Crime No. 175 of 2011 u/s 498A, 304B IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Iteathok, District Gonda. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

3. Attention has been drawn towards para 10 of the bail application wherein the applicant has categorically indicated that after getting the divorce from his first wife Smt. Jubeda in the year 2009-10 he re-married with another lady and started living in Mumbai. The photocopy of the Nikahnama dated 1.7.2009 has been enclosed as Annexure no. 3. When the impugned F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2011 the present applicant was living in Mumbai with his second wife. He has nothing to do with the family affairs of his first wife or the son. The applicant was implicated in the F.I.R. but he could not know about this fact. The trial of his son and his first wife was separated, conducted and concluded on 22.2.2013. Vide judgment and order dated 22.2.2013 his son Mohd. Saddam and first wife Smt. Jubeda Khatoon have been acquitted.

4. Challenging the aforesaid acquittal order the complainant / informant filed a criminal appeal before this Court bearing Criminal Appeal No. 483 of 2013 which is still pending consideration wherein entire records of the trial have been summoned. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that presently the applicant is living at Mahrajganj, U.P. having his permanent address there so there is no flight risk. The applicant has no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant / informant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

7. Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that after getting the divorce from his first wife Smt. Jubeda in the year 2009-10 he re-married with another lady and started living in Mumbai, when the impugned F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2011 the present applicant was living in Mumbai with his second wife, applicant has nothing to do with the family affairs of his first wife or the son, applicant was implicated in the F.I.R. but he could not know about this fact, trial of his son and his first wife was separated, conducted and concluded on 22.2.2013 and they have been acquitted, presently the applicant is living at Mahrajganj, U.P. having his permanent address there so there is no flight risk, applicant has no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

8. Bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant, Titter @ Moh. Farukh, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C.may be issued and if the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned. . Order Date :- 29.1.2025/Om (Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.) OM PRAKASH MISHRA OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

Applicant :- Titter @ Moh. Farukh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Akansha Pathak,Rakesh Kumar Srivastava,Savitri Arya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohd. Hayan Hasan Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

1. Heard Ms. Akansha Pathak and Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Rafiya Farooqui, learned A.G.A. for the State and Mohd. Hayan Hasan, Advocate who has filed 'Vakalatnama' on behalf of informant / complainant.

2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 30.11.2024 in Crime No. 175 of 2011 u/s 498A, 304B IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Iteathok, District Gonda. It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

3. Attention has been drawn towards para 10 of the bail application wherein the applicant has categorically indicated that after getting the divorce from his first wife Smt. Jubeda in the year 2009-10 he re-married with another lady and started living in Mumbai. The photocopy of the Nikahnama dated 1.7.2009 has been enclosed as Annexure no. 3. When the impugned F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2011 the present applicant was living in Mumbai with his second wife. He has nothing to do with the family affairs of his first wife or the son. The applicant was implicated in the F.I.R. but he could not know about this fact. The trial of his son and his first wife was separated, conducted and concluded on 22.2.2013. Vide judgment and order dated 22.2.2013 his son Mohd. Saddam and first wife Smt. Jubeda Khatoon have been acquitted.

4. Challenging the aforesaid acquittal order the complainant / informant filed a criminal appeal before this Court bearing Criminal Appeal No. 483 of 2013 which is still pending consideration wherein entire records of the trial have been summoned. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that presently the applicant is living at Mahrajganj, U.P. having his permanent address there so there is no flight risk. The applicant has no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant / informant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.

7. Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, contents and allegations of the F.I.R., the fact that after getting the divorce from his first wife Smt. Jubeda in the year 2009-10 he re-married with another lady and started living in Mumbai, when the impugned F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2011 the present applicant was living in Mumbai with his second wife, applicant has nothing to do with the family affairs of his first wife or the son, applicant was implicated in the F.I.R. but he could not know about this fact, trial of his son and his first wife was separated, conducted and concluded on 22.2.2013 and they have been acquitted, presently the applicant is living at Mahrajganj, U.P. having his permanent address there so there is no flight risk, applicant has no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever and the undertaking given on behalf of the applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial proceedings, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

8. Bail application is allowed.

9. Let the applicant, Titter @ Moh. Farukh, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C.may be issued and if the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. (v) The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned. . Order Date :- 29.1.2025/Om (Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.) OM PRAKASH MISHRA OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench