Allowed

Shah Mohammad Khan @ Pammi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2020ABAIL/2432/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge granted anticipatory bail to the applicant for a limited period until the submission of the police report, imposing conditions regarding appearance, inducement, and passport deposit without expressing an opinion on the merits of the allegations.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on anticipatory bail for limited period on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties, conditional upon appearing for interrogation and not influencing witnesses.

Shah Mohammad Khan @ Pammi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2432 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Shah Mohammad Khan @ Pammi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Chandrakesh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Imran Ullah

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Daya Shankar Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Chandrakesh Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Faiz Ahmad, Advocate holding brief of Sri Imran Ullah, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Shah Mohammad Khan @ Pammi, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 99 of 2019, under Sections- 342, 363, 370 I.P.C., Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Section 5/6 of Prevention of Children From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), Police Station- Maduadih, District- Varanasi.

¶7

Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U. P. Amendment) is not required.

¶8

The allegations in the F.I.R. are against named accused Rakhi. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has submitted that the name of the applicant is Pammi. The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case on the name of Shah Mohammad Khan @ Pammi. He has no role in the incident. By falsely informing the court below that charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant was got rejected when the fact is that investigation is still in progress against him.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. He has submitted that proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against the applicant and therefore, in view of the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2012) 8 SCC 730, the applicant is not entitled to be granted any anticipatory bail.

¶10

Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon paragraph 10 of the aforesaid judgement wherein it has been mentioned that "normally" when the accused is absconding and declared as a proclaimed offender, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that in this case, only proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C. have been initiated. The applicant has not been declared absconder and the Supreme Court has used the word "normally" and it is not an imperative condition for all the cases. The requirement as per the case of Hon'ble

¶11

Supreme Court differs from case to case. The applicant has definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.

¶12

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation, his antecedents and the fact that the investigation is still underway, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail for limited period in this case considering the exceptions considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and order dated 22.05.2020 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2609 of 2020.

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicant, 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 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:-

¶14

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

¶15

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office;

¶16

(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;

¶17

(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad;

¶18

(v) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶19

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.

¶20

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law, expeditiously, independently without being prejudiced by any observations made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 17.12.2020 KS

Shah Mohammad Khan @ Pammi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shah Mohammad Khan @ Pammi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Suleman Vs State of U.P.

Puran and Another Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Khanna Vs State of U.P.

Balli @ Rajendra Singh and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Chandrashekhar Yadav and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.