Allowed

Mohammad Akram @ Akram and others v. State of Up and Others

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2023ABAIL/11848/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by four applicants in a case involving offenses punishable up to seven years imprisonment. Guided by the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal, the court held that bail is a fit case and granted it till the end of trial subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till the end of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each, subject to standard conditions.

Mohammad Akram @ Akram and others Vs State of Up and… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:215753

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11848 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mohammad Akram @ Akram And Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Applicant :- Utsav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶8

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicants - Mohammad Akram @ Akram, Mohammad Aslam @ Aslam, Mohammad Umar @ Ache and Mohammad Vakeel in connection with Case Crime No.57A of 2005, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kokhraj, District Kaushambi.

¶9

A dacoity was committed by 25 named accused persons in the shop of the informant. F.I.R. was lodged under section 395 IPC, but however charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 452, 504, 506 IPC.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of their arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. They have been falsely implicated into this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. The investigation of the case has been completed and chargesheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken into the matter. It is further submitted that the contents of the F.I.R. are not found true during the investigation as Section 395 IPC under which the F.I.R. was lodged, has been deleted during the investigation and no evidence thereof was found by the I.O. It is also submitted that earlier an Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. - 17576 of 2023 was moved by the applicants, but however no interim relief was granted to the applicants and the said application is still pending. It is also submitted that during investigation, the applicants have been cooperative and now after submission of charge-sheet, no custodial interrogation is required in this matter from the applicants as the offences

¶11

alleged against the applicants are punishable with the imprisonment upto a maximum period of seven years. It is also submitted that the applicants have not been declared proclaimed offenders by the trial court. No process under sections 82, 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against them as such they are entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶12

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶13

In the present matter, the offences under which the chargesheet has been filed against the applicants are punishable with the imprisonment for a maximum period of seven years. No custodial interrogation is required in this matter.

¶14

Although charge-sheet has been submitted in the present matter, but in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶15

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶16

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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, likelihood 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.

¶17

Hence, 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 of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till end of the trial in the matter.

¶18

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶19

In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶20

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter;

¶21

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

¶22

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶23

In case of default of any of the conditions, same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicants.

¶24

Order Date :- 6.11.2023 ss

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohammad Akram @ Akram and others v. State of Up and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Akram @ Akram and others v. State of Up and Others

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

Vikash Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P.

Akash Shivhare Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sushila Devi Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Jagiya @ Vimla Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vishnu Gaur Vs State of U.P. and Another