Allowed

Mohd Jafar and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2023ABAIL/1310/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to three applicants in a case involving criminal charges. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents, noting the applicants' cooperation and lack of arrest during investigation. They were released on personal and surety bonds with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Accused-applicants released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each under standard conditions.

Mohd Jafar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:160472

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1310 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd Jafar And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Amit Kumar, 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 applicants in Case Crime No.0105 of 2020, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 307, 353, 336, 323, 504, 188 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act at Police Station- Kotwali, District Meerut with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants were enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by this Court vide order dated 27.07.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.3878 of 2020. The applicants have not misused the opportunity granted earlier and have cooperated during investigation.

¶10

In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director AIR 2021 SC 4154 , wherein the Court has clearly held that if a person, who is an accused in a non-bailable/cognizable offence, was not taken into custody during the period of investigation, in such a case, it is appropriate that he may be released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicants. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that

¶11

they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶12

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 applicants.

¶13

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are 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 applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶14

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants- Mohd. Jafar, Akram and Haseen 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:-

¶15

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

¶16

(ii). that 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(Krishan Pahal, J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 9.8.2023 Ravi Kant

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd Jafar and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Jafar and 2 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

Chandu @ Chand Mohd Vs State of U.P.

Aman Chauhan@ Aman Rana Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ajay Vs State of U.P. and Another

Faiyyaz Vs State of U.P.

Jyoti Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Himanshu Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another