Court granted anticipatory bail to Ataullah and another in a case involving assault under various IPC sections. Bail granted on personal bond with conditions regarding cooperation and non-interference pending police report.
Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties until submission of police report under S. 173(2) Cr.P.C.
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. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4300 of 2022
Applicant :- Ataullah And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Awadhesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants today, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.0024/2022, under Sections 323/504/506/308 I.P.C., Police Station Puranderpur, District Maharajganj with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicants may be released on bail.
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. According to prosecution version, on 15.02.2022 at 8.00 AM applicants and co-accused persons, armed with various weapons, assaulted the complainant, his wife and his son Istiyaq and resultantly they sustained several injuries. Learned counsel submitted that in fact the complainant and others have assaulted the applicants' party by trespassing into their house and that four persons including Ataullah, Wajid, Shahid and Majid have sustained injuries and that injured Majid and Wajid have sustained serious injuries. It was submitted that a cross first information report was lodged on 15.02.2022 from the side of applicants by Siparis
Ali against complainant of this case and his family members and thereafter, the first information report of this case was lodged against applicants. Only general allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons including applicant. It was also submitted that co-accused Nasibullah and Mohd. Shahid have been granted regular bail by the court of Sessions Judge, Maharajganj, the copy of which is available on record. It was also submtited that in medical examination report of injured Jashirunnisha, fracture of frontal bone has been shown but there is no such specific evidence that which of the accused has caused said injuries. The applicants have no criminal antecedents and 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 during investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the application for anticipatory bail and argued that in the alleged incident three persons have sustained several injuries. Injured Jashirunnisha has sustained fracture in frontal bone and injured Istiyaq has also sustained several injuries including the fracture in frontal bone. Learned counsel for complainant further submitted that alleged incident has been shown of 15.02.2022 and since then a period of two months have already been passed and thus, it is clear that applicants have no apprehension of arrest and thus, their application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable.
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.
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 applicants 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.
The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
In the event of arrest of applicants Ataullah and Wazid involved in the aforesaid case crime shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on 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:-
(i) the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(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;
(iii) the applicants would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.
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.
Order Date :- 2.8.2022 Neeraj
Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.08.04 17:26:21 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable and grantable to the applicants under S. 438 Cr.P.C. in the criminal case mentioned.
Whether the nature of accusation, apprehension of arrest, and other circumstances make out a prima facie case for anticipatory bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶12
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ataullah And Another
Raj Beer Singh
Neeraj Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
