The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant Farman in a case involving charges of attempted murder and cheating. Conditions for travel and cooperation were imposed based on Supreme Court precedent.
Anticipatory bail allowed on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/ and two sureties each in the like amount subject to 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. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10747 of 2022
Applicant :- Farman Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Tyagi,Archana Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.288 of 2022, registered under Sections 307, 414, 420 and 465 IPC at Police Station- Sarsawa, District Saharanpur with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
As per prosecution story, co-accused persons, namely, Pawneet Sing and Rajik, were arrested by the police in a police party firing no injury case on 14.07.2022.
Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has further stated that he although is named in the FIR was not arrested at the spot and his name has come up in the confession of arrested co-accused persons, namely, Pawneet Sing and Rajik. None of the police personnel is stated to have sustained any injury whatsoever. Learned counsel has further stated that the statement of the co-accused person is not admissible as per the Indian Evidence Act. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Farman be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/court concerned with the following conditions:-
It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial or deciding the regular bail application.
Order Date :- 3.11.2022 Ravi Kant
Digitally signed by RAVI KANT Date: 2022.11.04 17:24:28 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in the FIR under Sections 307, 414, 420 and 465 IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)Referred¶11
Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Farman
State of U.P.
Krishan Pahal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
