Allowed

Nannu @ Ishrat and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 May 2021ABAIL/4361/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This case disposed of an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court granted bail for a limited period considering the apprehension of threat to life. Special conditions were imposed, including reporting requirements, surrender of passport, and strict compliance with trial court dates.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till 03.01.2022 with strict conditions including address reporting, no foreign travel, surrender of passport, and adherence to trial court schedules.

Nannu @ Ishrat and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4361 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Nannu @ Ishrat And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

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.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for State through video conferencing.

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicants,Nannu @ Ishrat and Firoz , in Case Crime No. 458 of 2020 under Sections 147,323,452,354, IPC, Police Station- Inchauli , District- Meerut .

¶8

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.

¶9

There is allegation of attempt to rape and outraging the modesty of a women

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants are brothers-in-law of the victim. They have been falsely implicated on account of property dispute.

¶11

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, she 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.

¶12

Since the application has been heard through video conferencing and the connectivety 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.

¶13

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:-

¶14

The applicants shall, at the time of execution of the bond, furnish his address and mobile number and shall not change the residence till the conclusion of investigation/ trial without informing the Investigating Officer of the police/ the Court concerned of change of address and the reasons for the same before changing the same.

¶15

The applicants shall not leave the country during the pendency of trial/investigation by police without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶16

The applicants shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not play mischeif with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the Investigating Officer of the police;

¶17

The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court/Investigating Officer forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court/ Investigating Officer till the investigation is completed. In case they have no passport, they will file their affidavits before the Court/ Investigating Officer concerned in this regard.

¶18

That the applicants 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 his from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶19

The applicants shall maintain law and order.

¶20

The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment before the trial court on the dates fixed for evidence and when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶21

In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and the Government Advocate/informant/complainant can file bail cancellation application.

¶22

The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of her bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶23

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶24

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.

¶25

The applicants are warned not to get themselves implicated in any crime and should keep distance from the informant and not to misuse the liberty granted hereby. Any misuse of liberty granted by this Court would be viewed seriously against the applicants in further proceedings.

¶26

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.

¶27

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶28

Order Date :- 11.5.2021 Atul kr. sri.

Nannu @ Ishrat and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nannu @ Ishrat and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Dulare Vishwakarma @ Ramdular Vishwakarma and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shareef Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukesh Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kothari Bharti Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hina Fazali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jagveer Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.