Allahabad High Court
Mahesh Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 6 March, 2025
Author: Vivek Kumar Birla
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32067-DB Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3171 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mahesh Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Subhas Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.
1. Heard Sri B.S. Chauhan holding brief of Sri Subhas Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents.
2. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 1.9.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 399 of 2024 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kalyanpur, District Kanpur Nagar. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case.
3. A prayer for adjournment is being made on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly when the case is continuing in the list of fresh cases as passed over matters, we are not inclined to pass over the matter.
4. We have gone through the first information report and specific allegation against the petitioner is that from the mobile number owned by the petitioner he has issued forged documents of several students in respect of degree, mark-sheets, migration certificate and transcript etc. The petitioner has approached before this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 11817 of 2024 (Mahesh Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and another), which was rejected by order dated 31.1.2025, which is quoted as under:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No. 399 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station- Kalyanpur, Commissionerate, Kanpur Nagar.
3. It is alleged in the first information report that one Mohammad Shadab Ahmad, student of B.C.A. transcript issued found forged and fabricated. On enquiry, it is found that transcript has been issued by the owner of mobile no. 7571926192. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. Applicant is the owner of the said mobile number. Applicant is not named in the first information report. There is no evidence against the applicant to prosecute him in the present case. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application of the applicant.
5. Considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. From perusal of record, it is apparent that applicant is the owner of alleged mobile number and he has issued forged documents. Further, proper interrogation is required in this matter as investigation is still going on and from the interrogation it would be revealed that how many persons are involved in the alleged offence. No case for interference by this Court is made out.
6. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application stands rejected."
5. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses cognizable offence.
6. Moreover, the petitioner is not named in the first information report and as such present at his instance is not maintainable. In any case, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. We further find that the learned Single Judge has clearly recorded a finding that the matter requires investigation and interrogation as well.
7. Perusal of the impugned first information report prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report.
8. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Lalit Shukla