Allowed¶12

Gaffar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Sept 2022ABAIL/8848/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Krishan Pahal, J., 16.9.2022 — Anticipatory bail application u/S 438 CrPC (No. 8848 of 2022) by Gaffar in Case Crime No. 186 of 2021 (SS. 147/148/149/323/324/504/506/307 IPC, PS Chhapar, Muzaffarnagar); cross FIR No. 187 of 2021; injuries on both sides; no criminal antecedents; charge-sheet filed; bail allowed relying on Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565; personal bond Rs. 50,000 with two like sureties and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to applicant Gaffar in Case Crime No. 186 of 2021; release forthwith on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to seven conditions including availability for interrogation, non-tampering, no departure from India without permission, and appearance before the trial court.

Gaffar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Gaffar, arraigned in Case Crime No. 186 of 2021 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504, 506, 307 IPC at Police Station Chhapar, District Muzaffar Nagar, is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶6

Court's answer

Considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, and in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail; future contingencies to be handled as per that judgment.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

The anticipatory bail application is allowed; the accused-applicant Gaffar is to be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount, subject to the enumerated conditions (availability for interrogation, no tampering/inducement, no leaving India without permission, no pressurising witnesses, appearance before trial court, etc.).

¶12

Key takeaways

Observations made in the order are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial or the decision of the regular bail application.obiter¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — S. 438 Cr.P.C. — applicant Gaffar sought pre-arrest bail in Case Crime No. 186 of 2021, SS. 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504, 506, 307 IPC, PS Chhapar, District Muzaffar Nagar, arising out of an altercation of 05.10.2021 in which six persons were injured — counsel pointed to a cross version registered as FIR No. 187 of 2021, injuries to five persons from the applicant's side, the applicant's heart ailment, police-station bail already granted and non-misuse thereof, absence of criminal antecedents, and filing of the charge-sheet — A.G.A. could not dispute the cross version, injuries on the applicant's side, or lack of antecedents — relying on Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, the Court held the applicant liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail and allowed the application, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions; observations confined to the bail application and not to affect the trial.

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8848 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Gaffar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Bharti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.186 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504, 506, 307 IPC at Police Station- Chhapar, District Muzaffar Nagar with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith other coaccused persons is said to have assaulted the informant and other family members injuring six persons in all on 05.10.2021 at 9:00 pm.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is cross version to the said FIR which has been registered at FIR No.187 of 2021. At this point of time, it cannot be ascertained as to which party was the aggressor one. Learned counsel has also filed certain documents of the treatment of the applicant who is undergoing treatment for heart ailment at G.B. Pant Hospital, Delhi. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant was enlarged on bail by the police from the police station itself and has not misused the said liberty granted to him. Five persons from the side of the applicant have also sustained injuries. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. The charge-sheet has already been filed against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for vacation of the interim protection.

¶9

The prayer for anticipatory bail have been vehemently opposed

¶10

by learned A.G.A. However, he could not dispute the fact that there is cross version to the FIR and also that five persons have sustained injuries from the said of the applicant and that there are no criminal antecedents of the applicant.

¶11

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶12

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Gaffar be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶14

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;

¶15

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

¶16

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;

¶17