Mateen Ahmad v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma, learned Advocate who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant, which is taken on record. According to the prosecution, opposite party no. 2 submitted an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich, alleging that Smt. Badrunisha, wife of Md. Sharif and daughter of Abdul Wali Khan, resident of village Nibiya Hussainpur, Block Risiya, District Bahraich, along with opposite party nos. 1 and 3, conspired to obtain employment on the basis of a forged educational certificate. It was alleged that a fake mark sheet showing Smt. Badrunisha’s passing of class VIII from Pre-Secondary School, Gulhariya, Block Risiya (Serial No. 11749, year 2006) was fraudulently prepared. On the strength of this forged document, she was appointed as an Anganwadi worker under the Child Development Services and Nutrition Department, a joint scheme of the Central and State Governments. Opposite party nos. 1 and 3, in connivance with each other, allegedly secured the post of Anganwadi Assistant in Nibiya Hussainpur using this fake certificate and have been drawing honorarium 2 NABAIL No. 1591 of 2025 and other benefits from the department. On verification, the Headmaster of the concerned school certified on 27.07.2023 that no record exists regarding the said mark sheet or the education of Smt. Badrunisha, indicating that the document is fabricated. It was further stated that despite submitting written complaints online and by registered post to the Superintendent of Police, the Child Development Project Officer, and the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 4.3.2024 and 5.3.2024, no action has been taken so far. Accordingly, a request was made to the Hon’ble Court to direct the Station House Officer, Police Station Risiya, District Bahraich, to register an FIR under appropriate sections of law and submit a report to the Court. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is not named in the FIR. He is a retired Principal of a Government School, aged about 71 years, having no criminal antecedents. The incident pertains to the year 2006, whereas the FIR has been lodged only in 2024 through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that during investigation, the applicant has been made accused with the aid of Section 120-B IPC. It has been further submitted that the material on record does not disclose that the applicant had entered into any conspiracy with the named accused persons. The allegation against the applicant is that he obtained an unsigned affidavit of the father of one Badrunisha and, on that basis, permitted her to appear in the examination in the year 2006. It is further submitted that around 50 students of the school had submitted similar affidavits in bulk. The applicant, being the only teacher posted in that school, was also required to perform other ministerial duties in addition to his teaching work. There may have been some negligence on his part, but such negligence cannot be equated with criminal conspiracy or intentional misconduct in permitting the students to appear in the examination. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, and during the entire course of investigation, the applicant was never arrested. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that if the accused is granted anticipatory bail, he undertakes to comply with all conditions 3 NABAIL No. 1591 of 2025 imposed by the Court. He shall fully cooperate with the investigation and shall not misuse the liberty granted to him. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application, submitting that the anticipatory bail application of the co- accused, Mohammad Shareef Khan, has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 482 BNSS No. 1504 of 2025, and hence, the present application is also liable to be rejected on the same ground. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the case of the present applicant stands on a distinct footing from that of the co-accused, Mohammad Shareef Khan. Perused the record. A perusal of the bail order of co-accused Mohammad Shareef Khan indicates that his application was rejected on the ground that, despite having been granted bail earlier, he failed to appear before the Court and had flouted the conditions of bail. However, so far as the present applicant is concerned, there is no such allegation or material on record. Therefore, the rejection of bail in the case of Mohammad Shareef Khan was based on different grounds. On due consideration to the applicant's age (71 years), the nature of the offences, the lack of prima facie evidence for Section 120-B IPC, an unexplained 18-year delay in filing the FIR and also considering fact that the applicant has not been arrested during investigation and he has cooperated in the investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Musheer Alam v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116 , subject to his cooperation in the trial. In view of the above, the accused-applicant is directed to surrender before the trial court within a period of twenty days from today. Upon his surrender, the trial court shall release him on anticipatory bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court, with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall refrain from directly or indirectly inducing, 4 NABAIL No. 1591 of 2025 threatening, or promising any person familiar with the facts of the case in a manner that may dissuade them from revealing such facts before the Court or result in tampering with the evidence; (ii) The applicant shall not travel outside India without prior permission from the Court; (iii) The applicant shall not attempt to influence or intimidate any prosecution witness; (iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on all scheduled dates unless specifically exempted from personal appearance; (v) In the event of any violation of the aforementioned conditions, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant; Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed. It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed. October 30, 2025 R.C. (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Pawan Kumar Sharma, learned Advocate who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant, which is taken on record. According to the prosecution, opposite party no. 2 submitted an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich, alleging that Smt. Badrunisha, wife of Md. Sharif and daughter of Abdul Wali Khan, resident of village Nibiya Hussainpur, Block Risiya, District Bahraich, along with opposite party nos. 1 and 3, conspired to obtain employment on the basis of a forged educational certificate. It was alleged that a fake mark sheet showing Smt. Badrunisha’s passing of class VIII from Pre-Secondary School, Gulhariya, Block Risiya (Serial No. 11749, year 2006) was fraudulently prepared. On the strength of this forged document, she was appointed as an Anganwadi worker under the Child Development Services and Nutrition Department, a joint scheme of the Central and State Governments. Opposite party nos. 1 and 3, in connivance with each other, allegedly secured the post of Anganwadi Assistant in Nibiya Hussainpur using this fake certificate and have been drawing honorarium 2 NABAIL No. 1591 of 2025 and other benefits from the department. On verification, the Headmaster of the concerned school certified on 27.07.2023 that no record exists regarding the said mark sheet or the education of Smt. Badrunisha, indicating that the document is fabricated. It was further stated that despite submitting written complaints online and by registered post to the Superintendent of Police, the Child Development Project Officer, and the Hon’ble Chief Minister on 4.3.2024 and 5.3.2024, no action has been taken so far. Accordingly, a request was made to the Hon’ble Court to direct the Station House Officer, Police Station Risiya, District Bahraich, to register an FIR under appropriate sections of law and submit a report to the Court. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is not named in the FIR. He is a retired Principal of a Government School, aged about 71 years, having no criminal antecedents. The incident pertains to the year 2006, whereas the FIR has been lodged only in 2024 through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that during investigation, the applicant has been made accused with the aid of Section 120-B IPC. It has been further submitted that the material on record does not disclose that the applicant had entered into any conspiracy with the named accused persons. The allegation against the applicant is that he obtained an unsigned affidavit of the father of one Badrunisha and, on that basis, permitted her to appear in the examination in the year 2006. It is further submitted that around 50 students of the school had submitted similar affidavits in bulk. The applicant, being the only teacher posted in that school, was also required to perform other ministerial duties in addition to his teaching work. There may have been some negligence on his part, but such negligence cannot be equated with criminal conspiracy or intentional misconduct in permitting the students to appear in the examination. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed, and during the entire course of investigation, the applicant was never arrested. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that if the accused is granted anticipatory bail, he undertakes to comply with all conditions 3 NABAIL No. 1591 of 2025 imposed by the Court. He shall fully cooperate with the investigation and shall not misuse the liberty granted to him. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application, submitting that the anticipatory bail application of the co- accused, Mohammad Shareef Khan, has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 482 BNSS No. 1504 of 2025, and hence, the present application is also liable to be rejected on the same ground. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the case of the present applicant stands on a distinct footing from that of the co-accused, Mohammad Shareef Khan. Perused the record. A perusal of the bail order of co-accused Mohammad Shareef Khan indicates that his application was rejected on the ground that, despite having been granted bail earlier, he failed to appear before the Court and had flouted the conditions of bail. However, so far as the present applicant is concerned, there is no such allegation or material on record. Therefore, the rejection of bail in the case of Mohammad Shareef Khan was based on different grounds. On due consideration to the applicant's age (71 years), the nature of the offences, the lack of prima facie evidence for Section 120-B IPC, an unexplained 18-year delay in filing the FIR and also considering fact that the applicant has not been arrested during investigation and he has cooperated in the investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Musheer Alam v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 116 , subject to his cooperation in the trial. In view of the above, the accused-applicant is directed to surrender before the trial court within a period of twenty days from today. Upon his surrender, the trial court shall release him on anticipatory bail, subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court, with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall refrain from directly or indirectly inducing, 4 NABAIL No. 1591 of 2025 threatening, or promising any person familiar with the facts of the case in a manner that may dissuade them from revealing such facts before the Court or result in tampering with the evidence; (ii) The applicant shall not travel outside India without prior permission from the Court; (iii) The applicant shall not attempt to influence or intimidate any prosecution witness; (iv) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on all scheduled dates unless specifically exempted from personal appearance; (v) In the event of any violation of the aforementioned conditions, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant; Any other reasonable restrictions/conditions which the trial court may deem fit and proper can be imposed. It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed. October 30, 2025 R.C. (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench