Allowed

Jamil Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2023ABAIL/11352/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail. The Court allowed the application subject to specific conditions including cooperation with investigation, avoiding interference with evidence, and appearing in court, relying on Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of cooperation, non-interference with evidence, and appearance in court.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:213518

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11352 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Jamil Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vipul Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Vipul Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Criminal Case No.69644 of 2021 (State vs. Dilip Chaurasia and others), arising out of Case Crime No.338 of 2020, registered under Sections 323, 354(B), 427, 448, 452, 504, 120-B I.P.C. at Police Station- Gwaltoli, District- Kanpur Nagar with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

This is the second anticipatory bail application on behalf of the applicant. The first one was rejected for want of prosecution vide order dated 30.11.2022 of this Court.

¶10

As per prosecution story, the applicant alongwith co-accused persons, namely, Dilip Chaurasia and Kaleem Briyaniwala is stated to have barged into the house of the informant on 17.7.2020 at about 02:00 p.m. and outraged her modesty. Subsequent to it, when her husband reached on her raising of alarm, he is also stated to have been beaten up by them.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no injury report to corroborate the prosecution story, in fact, the real story was that the informant did not want to vacate the house which belongs to co-accused person Dilip Chaurasia. Learned counsel has stated that the matter of Rent Control Act has been converted into criminal one. The applicant has no criminal history to his credit.

¶12

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

¶13

at length. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant undertakes that he has cooperated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶14

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶15

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 "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . 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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(ii). 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;

¶19

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶20

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

¶21

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶22

(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶23

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶24

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶25

Order Date :- 6.11.2023/Vikas

¶26

[Krishan Pahal, J.]

¶27

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jamil Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamil Ahmad 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

Rajeev Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Sukhpal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankush Vs State of U.P.

Shyam Sundar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amir Vs State of U.P. and Another