Allowed

Aalim and 4 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Dec 2023ABAIL/13007/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application for five applicants facing charges in a free fight case. Relying on settled principles, the court held that as no person sustained injury and names appeared only in co-accused confessions, the applicants are entitled to bail via personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicants released on personal bail of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of like amount till filing of police report.

Aalim and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:233940

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13007 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Aalim And 4 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Shamim Khan,Deepak Singh Patel

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶7

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

¶8

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants - Aalim, Imtiyaz, Gulsher Ali, Sharik and Fazil @ Fighter seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 282 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 352, 336, 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Mundha Pandey, District Moradabad.

¶9

Two rival groups made a free fight on the highway and lathi, danda and country made pistol were used in the incident. The police intervened and F.I.R. was lodged on 6.10.2023 against some unknown persons. Investigation started, which is going on.

¶10

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. It is also submitted that the applicants are not named in the F.I.R. Their names came into light in this matter on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused persons. It is also submitted that it is a no injury case and no person from either of the groups has sustained any injury in this matter. Applicants have absolutely no concern with the alleged incident. It is also submitted that the the applicants have no criminal history to their credit. They have been cooperative with the investigation so far and as such they are entitled for anticipatory bail. In case the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, but however could not dispute the factual aspect that the name of the applicants came into light in this matter on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused persons.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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 applicants till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶15

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶16

In the event of arrest of the applicants, they shall be released on anticipatory bail till filing of police report under Section 173(2)

¶17

Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on their 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 applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶19

(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 office.

¶20

(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.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 11.12.2023

¶23

¶24

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

Aalim and 4 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aalim and 4 Others 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

Laveesh Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Kumar Dixit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nijam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak @ Avinash Vs State of U.P.

Prashant Ojha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Maan Singh@ Karan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another