Allowed

Islam and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC26 Oct 2023ABAIL/11665/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application, the Court granted bail to applicants accused under various IPC sections for alleged criminal breach of peace and affray, applying guidelines from the Constitution Bench judgment of Sushila Aggarwal case.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties subject to conditions of cooperation, no inducement, passport surrender, and attendance.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:204221

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11665 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Islam And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rama Shankar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rama Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.399 of 2018, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 323, 452, 504 I.P.C., P.S.- Aurangabad, District- Bulandshahar.

¶8

As per FIR, there are nine accused persons. The allegations against the applicants are that younger son of the informant was running on road in the morning of 18.8.2018, one person, namely, Chand Babu abused him and when his son objected the same and near about 9:00 p.m. the applicant along with other accused entered in the house of the informant and committed marpeet, his elder brother, namely, Ram Prakash sustained injuries.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case. He submitted that as per FIR and statement of the injured, no specific role has been assigned to the accuse persons including the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the accused persons including the applicants were not carry any dangerous weapons and as per injury report, the injuries are simple and as such, no offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out against the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that earlier the applicants have approached this Court filing a writ petition being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.26800 of 2018 challenging the FIR and co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.9.2018 granted interim protection to the

¶10

applicants till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.. Now, the charge sheet has been submitted and no credible evidence has been found against the applicants. The applicants have no criminal history. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that applicants have apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicants are released on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicants, they are not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicants is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶12

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, they are directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants- Islam and Ashif involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The applicants shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.

¶15

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶16

(iii) The applicants shall not leave the country during the

¶17

currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶18

(iv) The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶19

(v) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicants.

¶20

(vi) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶21

(vii) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶22

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶23

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of.

¶24

Order Date :- 26.10.2023 Krishna*

¶25

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Islam and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Islam and Another v. State of U.P.

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

Rishabh @ Rishabh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Hariom and Another Vs State of U.P.

Inam and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

X Minor and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Farman Vs State of U.P.

Anil Vs State of U.P.