Allowed

Shamim Ahmad and 2 Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC1 Nov 2022ABAIL/3866/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court examined an anticipatory bail application regarding offences of affray and assault. It rejected the plea for the first applicant due to a specific role in hitting the victim with an iron rod and prior criminal history, but allowed it for the next two applicants who had no specific roles and no antecedents, granting them bail on personal bonds.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to applicant no. 2 and 3 on personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- each with two sureties individually and two sureties each in the like amount.

Shamim Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3866 of 2022 Applicant :- Shamim Ahmad And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijay Shanker Singh,Kamla Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rupendra Kumar Mishra

¶3

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶4

Rejoinder affidavit filed in Court today, is taken on record.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the complainant, 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. 153 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 308, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kanth, District Moradabad with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have an apprehension that they may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. It was submitted that first information report of this case was lodged against 13 persons, including applicants, and that in the first information report except co-accused Sarfaraz and applicant no. 1 Shamim Ahmad, only general and omnibus role has been attributed to all the accused persons including applicant nos. 2 and 3, alleging that they have assaulted the injured with sticks and sharp edged weapons. Learned counsel has submitted that complainant/injured is a Councillor of Municipality and there is delay of 23 hours in first information report. It was also submitted that first information report was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and later on during

¶8

investigation, as the injured Waqeel Ahamad has sustained fracture of shaft of tibia and fibula in the left leg and fracture of fibula on near lower end and fracture of shaft of 2nd and 3rd metacarpal obe on right hand, thus, Section 325 IPC was also added by the Investigating Officer. It was further submitted that applicant nos. 2 and 3 and co-accused Idrees were granted bail for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC and after that without there being any other evidence, Section 308 IPC has been added by the Investigating Officer. It has been pointed out that all the head injuries of injured have been found simple in nature and only above-stated fractures were shown grievous and thus, no offence at all under Section 308 IPC is made out. It was also submitted that applicants undertake to co-operate during investigation and trial and they would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they 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. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail and argued that injured has sustained as many as ten injuries. It was submitted that earlier applicants have filed a 482 Cr.P.C. application before this Court, which was finally disposed of with the direction that applicants may surrender before the court below and seek bail. It was further submitted that so far applicant no. 1 Shamim Ahmad is concerned, specific role of attacking the injured with iron rod at his head, has been assigned to him. Further, there is criminal history of five cases against applicant no. 1 and thus, the role of applicant no. 1 is distinguished from other applicants and therefore applicant no. 1 cannot claim parity with co-accused Idrees, Riyaz, Daanish and Sanib, who

¶10

have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court.

¶11

Perusal of record shows that so far applicant no. 1 Shamim Ahmad is concerned, specific role of attacking the injured with iron rod at his head, has been assigned to him and there is criminal history of five cases against him and thus, considering the entire facts, specific role of applicant no. 1 as well as criminal antecedents, applicant no. 1 is not entitled for anticipatory bail and hence, the instant application filed on behalf of applicant no. 1 Shamim Ahmad is hereby rejected .

¶12

So far applicant nos. 2 and 3, namely, Mustaqeem Ahmad and Anees Ahmad is concerned, no specific role has been assigned to them. Further, it was also stated that they were earlier granted bail for offence under Section 325 IPC and thereafter Section 308 IPC has been added. There is nothing to show that they have misused the liberty of bail and they have no criminal antecedents. The role of applicant nos. 2 and 3 is at par with coaccused Idrees, Riyaz, Daanish and Sanib, who have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court.

¶13

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant nos. 2 and 3 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. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of applicant nos. 2 and 3, namely, Mustaqeem Ahmad and Anees Ahmad is hereby allowed.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicant nos. 2 and 3, namely, Mustaqeem Ahmad and Anees Ahmad involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two

¶15

sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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 applicants.

¶20

Order Date :- 1.11.2022 Anand

¶21

Digitally signed by ANAND VERMA Date: 2022.11.04 11:28:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shamim Ahmad and 2 Others v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamim Ahmad and 2 Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Faisal Ansari Vs State of U.P.

Tahir Husain Vs State of U.P.and Another

Pavan Gupta Vs State of U.P Thru Secretary Home Lknw. and 2 Others

Amit Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Kavita Vs State of U.P. and Another

Monu Alias Rishi Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another