Allowed

Tanveer v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Nov 2023ABAIL/12177/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a case involving degrees of sexual harassment and criminal intimidation. Bail was conditioned on cooperation with the investigation, non-interference with witnesses, and attendance at trial stages.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of; applicant enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and specific conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:218938

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12177 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Tanveer Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.386 of 2023, under Sections 354-B, 323 & 504 IPC, Police Station Bannadevi, District Aligarh.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant in fact no such incident has taken place as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. It is further submitted that applicantTanveer is brother-in-law (dewar) of the informant (Sanjeeda). As per allegation, applicant came from behind and touched the informant with foot, when she objected then he started abusing, fighting and sexually assaulted. Prima facie no alleged offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph-23 of the affidavit. He further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would cooperate with the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶10

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

¶11

Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 . The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶12

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant-Tanveer , involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial 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:-

¶13

(i) The applicant 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.

¶14

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

¶15

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶16

(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶17

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 applicant.

¶18

(vi) In case, the applicant 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 .

¶19

(vii) The applicant 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

¶20

proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶21

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 applicant.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 17.11.2023 I.A.Siddiqui

¶24

Digitally signed by :- IMRAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tanveer v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanveer 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

Salim Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ganga Prasad Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyendra Vs State of U.P.

Hrithik Kumar Gupta and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Yusuf Khan Vs State of U.P.