The Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Rashid in a case involving cheating and attempt to murder, citing the spread of the second wave of coronavirus as a special ground. The grant was conditional upon specific undertakings.
Anticipatory bail granted for a limited period till 03 January 2022 subject to twelve specific conditions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2657 of 2021
Applicant :- Rashid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar Pandey,Shashi Prakash Giri Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
As per Resolution dated 07.04.2021 of the Committee of this Court for the purpose of taking preventive and remedial measures and for combating the impending threat of Covid-19, this case is being heard by way of virtual mode.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for State through video conferencing.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant, in Case Crime No. 451 of 2020, under Section 420, 467, 471, 307 and 120B IPC, Police Station- Nagina, DistrictBijnor.
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.
There is allegation in the FIR that the applicant has fraudulently purchased a property on the basis of sale deed on 14.8.2020. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant has falsely been implicated in this case and he has no any criminal history except the present case. The applicant has definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, he is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear,
anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
Since the application has been heard through video conferencing and the connectivity was not very good, the Court could not gather the complete submissions raised at the Bar. However, keeping in view the mandate of Section 438(5) Cr.P.C., which requires disposal of anticipatory bail application within 30 days and also considering the spread of second wave of novel corona virus, the hearing of this bail application does not deserves to be adjourned in the larger interest of justice. Due to lack of proper technical support the cause of justice cannot be allowed to suffer.
After considering the rival contentions, and in view of the order dated 10.05 2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 4002 of 2021, Prateek Jain vs. State of U.P., and the facts and circumstances of the present case, and after finding that the apprehension to life in the current scenario is a ground for grant of anticipatory bail to an accused, this Court hereby directs that the applicant, in case of his arrest, shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail for the limited period, till 03 of January, 2022 on the following conditions:-
This anticipatory bail application is being allowed on
account of special conditions and on special ground. The normal grounds, settled for the grant of anticipatory bail, have not been considered by this Court and it would be open for the applicant to approach this Court again, if so adviced, in changed circumstances.
The anticipatory bail application is allowed .
Order Date :- 10.5.2021 Ankita
Digitally signed by JUSTICE SIDDHARTH Date: 2021.05.12 12:44:48 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail shall be granted to the applicant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. given the apprehension of arrest and special conditions.
Whether the video conferencing mode for hearing the bail application justifies immediate disposal under Section 438(5) Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P.Referred¶8
Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P.
Prateek Jain vs. State of U.P.Referred¶13
Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 4002 of 2021, Prateek Jain vs. State of U.P.
Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)Referred¶21
Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Rashid
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
