Allowed

Mohd Arif v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2022ABAIL/4446/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge granted anticipatory bail to the applicant Mohd. Arif, who was not named in the FIR and against whom investigation was pending, directing his release on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of like amount subject to six conditions including appearance for interrogation and non-tampering with evidence.

Mohd Arif Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4446 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mohd. Arif Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vikrant Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.219 of 2022, under Sections 186, 386, 353, 504, 506 & 507 IPC, Police Station - Civil Lines, District - Moradabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR wherein the present applicant is not named. Further, no allegation has been levelled against the present applicant. However, local police is harassing the present applicant having ulterior motive and extraneous design in the mind.

¶8

On being confronted the learned AGA as to whether charge sheet has been filed against the present applicant, learned AGA has submitted that investigation is still going on and no charge sheet has yet been filed against the present applicant.

¶9

Therefore, without entering into merits of the issue and considering the fact that the present applicant is not named in the FIR nor any allegation has been levelled against him and investigation is still going on, therefore, till filing of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., liberty of the present applicant may be protected.

¶10

Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, applicantMohd. Arif shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting authority/ court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶11

that the applicant shall make himself available for

¶12

interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶13

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;

¶14

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

¶15

that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant;

¶16

that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶17

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

¶18

In the aforesaid terms, the instant anticipatory bail application is disposed of .

¶19

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶20

Order Date :- 8.7.2022 RBS/-

¶21

Digitally signed by RAM BIR SINGH Date: 2022.07.08 14:46:23 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd Arif v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Arif v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Mayank Jain Vs State of U.P through Secretary Home and Another

Mohd. Irfan Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Devjeet Singh Vs State of U.P and Another

Smt. Parveen and 5 Others Vs State of U.P.

Toni Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Raees Khan Vs State of U.P.