Allowed

Anwar Hussain v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Dec 2022ABAIL/12448/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court considered an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding a murder and cheating case. Relying on a Supreme Court precedent, the single judge allowed bail with standard conditions to ensure trial attendance and non-interference with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on personal bond with two sureties and standard conditions including availability for interrogation and prohibition on tampering.

Anwar Hussain Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12448 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Anwar Hussain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Inder Pal Singh Tomar,Anjali Singh Tomer Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Inder Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sushil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 127 of 2020, under Sections 306, 323, 406, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Tronica City, District Ghaziabad, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicant and other co-accused persons are stated to have taken money from the deceased person on loan and later on, they are stated to have refused to return the said amount and are stated to have not even paid back any interest on the said amount.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. The three co-accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad. It is further submitted that there was a suicide note of the deceased person which was not legible. Learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the report of the Investigating Officer wherein he has even filed a closure report but later on, after further investigation, the present charge-sheet has been filed. There is no allegation of instigation by the applicant or any other co-accused persons. Learned counsel has further stated that the Investigating Officer has categorically opined that at the time of inquest report and lodging of the report, no suicide note was mentioned by the informant. The FIR is itself delayed by about an year and the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed on 17.03.2020 and the said delay has even not been explained. 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

¶9

to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶10

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the fact that the suicide note has not been legible.

¶11

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶12

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Anwar Hussain involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶14

that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶15

that 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶16

that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶17

that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶18

that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶19

that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶20

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the

¶21

applicant.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶23

Order Date :- 14.12.2022 Siddhant

¶24

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SAHU Date: 2022.12.14 18:30:11 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anwar Hussain v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anwar Hussain 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

Nagendra Vs State of U.P.

Karan Singh Vs State of U.P.

Mohd Aslam Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hariom Vs State of U.P. and Another

Banwari Lal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Mohammad Mahakar and Another Vs State of U.P and Another