Allowed

Wahid Ansari v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2021ABAIL/11734/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicant pending the filing of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The order was made after observing a procedural irregularity where a previous protection order was not effectively accompanied by the statutory service of notice to the Public Prosecutor and Superintendent of Police.

What did the court decide?

Interim anticipatory bail granted pending filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties.

Wahid Ansari Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11734 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Wahid Ansari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

¶5

Heard over anticipatory bail application moved under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., by applicant Wahid Ansari, in Case Crime No. 48 of 2021, under Sections-304, 308, 504, 147 I.P.C. Police Station-Dhanapur, District-Chandauli.

¶6

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 18.06.2021, had granted a protection, inviting instructions with regard to contention made by the applicant from the learned A.G.A. and till then no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant, was awarded, whereas, this application was for grant of anticipatory bail, under Section 438 Cr.P.C., requiring an order for grant of ad interim anticipatory bail, where the ground for grant of interim anticipatory bail is there; otherwise, to dismiss the application and in case of grant of ad interim anticipatory bail order, the requirement of calling for instructions, then after disposal on merit at final hearing within one month was required, but neither interim anticipatory bail has been granted nor counter affidavit has been invited, nor the order was communicated to the Superintendent of Police, concerned, as is required under Section 438 Cr.P.C. but a simplicitor order " till then no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant" was awarded.

¶7

Now, both sides have been heard and this anticipatory bail application was initially heard and protection was granted on 18.06.2021, hence as per sub-section 5 of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. of Uttar Pradesh State Amendment "the High Court or Court of Session, as the case may be, shall finally dispose off an application for grant of anticipatory bail under sub-section 1 of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. within 30 days of the date of such application. Under sub-section 3 of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. "where the Court grants interim order under sub-section (1), it shall forthwith cause a notice being not less than seven days notice, together with a copy of such order to be served on the Public Prosecutor and the Superintendent of Police, with a view to give the Public Prosecutor a reasonable opportunity of being heard and when the application shall be finally heard by the

¶8

Court". Meaning thereby, the anticipatory bail application is to be heard and finally decided within 30 days and in the present case, Court has granted protection and time has lapsed for five months still charge sheet has not been filed; the contention on the basis of which protection was granted is in substantiation, hence in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98 , anticipatory bail is being granted till filing of Police Report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., on following conditions.

¶9

In the meantime, in case of arrest, the applicant, Wahid Ansari, is directed to be enlarged on interim anticipatory bail in above Case Crime number, on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each of like amount before the Station House Officer of Police Station/Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶10

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required, if investigation is in progress;

¶11

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

¶12

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country 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/Court concerned;

¶13

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

¶14

The Investigating Officer will continue with the investigation, if it is in progress and will not be affected by this order.

¶15

It is made clear that the court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶16

With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of accordingly.

¶17

Order Date :- 3.12.2021 Deepak/

Wahid Ansari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wahid Ansari v. State of U.P.

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

Mohd Gufran Vs State of U.P.

Kanhaiya Alias Avinash Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Another

Naseem Khan Vs State of U.P.

Israr Vs State of U.P. and Another

Munnu Yadav @ Ramvilas Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Rajkumar Yadav Vs State of U.P.