Allowed

Sonu Alias Shoyeb Ahmad and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Nov 2022ABAIL/4565/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed an anticipatory bail application under CrPC 438 for accused facing alleged trespass, assault, and sexual harassment charges. The court found no credible evidence, no antecedents, and a delay in FIR lodgement, making bail appropriate subject to bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicants' anticipatory bail application allowed; they shall be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each of like amount, subject to specific conditions.

Sonu Alias Shoyeb Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4565 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Sonu alias Shoyeb Ahmad And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kishore Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, 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.73 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 352, 336, 354, 452, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Nauchandi, District Meerut 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. The first information report was lodged against applicants and co-accused Kayyum and 1012 unknown persons, alleging that on 28.12.2021 they trespassed into the house of informant and made an assault on the informant. It was also alleged that on 27.12.2021, the applicants have done 'Chhedchhar' with daughter of informant. Learned counsel submitted that alleged incident has been shown of 28.12.2021 but first information report has been lodged with long delay on 07.03.2022. In alleged incident, no-one has sustained any injury. In her statement under Section 161 CrPC, victim girl has merely stated that applicants used to pass comments on her but they have not done any ' Chhedchhar' with her. In her statement under Section 164 CrPC, victim girl has stated that applicants used to pass comments on her and that on

¶8

28.12.2021, they have pelted stones at her house. Referring to fats of the matter, it was submitted that there is no credible evidence against applicants. The applicants have no criminal antecedents. The 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 would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer 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 principles 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.

¶12

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶13

In the event of arrest of the applicants- Sonu alias Shoyeb Ahmad and Sakib Saifi in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount

¶14

to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/court below concerned with the following conditions :-

¶15

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

¶16

(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;

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

Order Date :- 4.11.2022 Neeraj

¶20

Digitally signed by NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH Date: 2022.11.05 14:29:13 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonu Alias Shoyeb Ahmad and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Alias Shoyeb Ahmad and Another 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Seema Rani Agarwal Vs State of U.P.

Alam Vs State of U.P.

Satyendra Kumar Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.and Another

Ateeq Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sudesh Vs State of U.P.

Ajay Jaiswal Vs State of U.P.