Allowed

Javed Khan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC30 Aug 2022ABAIL/2189/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The applicant, accused of illegal mining, satisfied the court of lack of credible evidence and clear motive for false implication. Bail was granted subject to a personal bond and conditions ensuring cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties in like amount, conditioned upon availability for interrogation, non-inducement of witnesses, and cooperation during investigation.

Javed Khan Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2189 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Javed Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Yaseen Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 78 of 2020, under Sections 379, 411 I.P.C. and Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development And Regulations) Act, Police Station Soraon, District Prayagraj with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. It has further been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far. According to prosecution version, truck no. UP72-T9595 was intercepted by the police, by which mineral (Sand) was being taken illegally and that the truck driver Arman Khan was apprehended at the spot. Learned counsel submitted that involvement of applicant has been shown on the basis of statement of coaccused Arman Khan and except that, there is no evidence against the applicant. There is no independent witness of alleged incident. Applicant has not indulged in any illegal mining. Learned counsel submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case merely on the basis that he is son of the registered owner of the truck. The said truck has already

¶8

been released in favour of its owner. The applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.

¶10

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

¶11

In the instant case, considering the settled principle of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

¶12

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicant- Javed Khan involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions :-

¶14

(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police as and when required;

¶15

(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 him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶16

(iii) the applicant would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶17

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶18

Order Date :- 30.8.2022 Anand

¶19

Digitally signed by ANAND VERMA Date: 2022.08.30 17:44:41 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Javed Khan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Javed Khan 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

Ramvilas Kushwaha vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Deepak Vs State of U.P

Tabassum (Smt.) and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Uma Shanker Pandey Vs State of U.P.

Madhu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Alok Parihar Vs State of U.P. and Another