Allowed

Alim v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Sept 2023ABAIL/10130/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Alim under Section 438 Cr.P.C. He faced charges under the Cow Slaughter Act. The court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held the case fit for anticipatory bail pending the filing of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., imposing specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed pending filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Release on bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties on specific conditions.

Alim Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178298

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10130 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Alim Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hasan Parvej Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Alim seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 355 of 2023, under Sections 3/5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act, Police StationBaherhi, District- Bareilly.

¶8

Remains of cow progeny was recovered from a field by some public person and FIR was lodged on 12.6.2023. Investigation started, which is going on.

¶9

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. It is further submitted that the name of the applicant came into light on the basis of the statement of co-accused Nadeem Ahmad. It is further submitted that the name of co-accused Nadeem Ahmad came on surface on the basis of the statement of independent witness Mehndi Hasan. It is further submitted that the field where from the remains of cow progeny are said to be recovered does not belong to the present applicant. It is further submitted that the criminal history of one case pertaining to the present applicant has been properly explained. It is further submitted that the applicant is cooperating with the investigation of the case and he is entitled for anticipatory bail. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but however, could not dispute this fact that the name of the present

¶11

applicant came into light on the basis of the statement of coaccused Nadeem Ahmad.

¶12

In the present case the applicant is said to be cooperative with the investigation of the case and the field where from the remains of cow progeny are said to be recovered does not belong to the present applicant.

¶13

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶14

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶15

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶16

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶19

(ii) 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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶21

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant.

¶22

Order Date :- 15.9.2023 Fhd

¶23

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Alim v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alim 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Agrawal and Anotehr Vs State of U.P.

Aamir Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sukai Harijan vs State of U.P.

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

Fardeen Vs State of U.P.

Anuj Chauhan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.