Allowed

Phahimuddin v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Mar 2023ABAIL/1468/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Phahimuddin in a rape and intimidation case. Considering the allegations of false implication, delayed FIR, and lack of antecedents, the applicant was released on bail with standard conditions, relying on Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

The applicant Phahimuddin was released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing personal and two sureties, subject to standard conditions of bail.

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

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1468 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Phahimuddin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rohit Dubey, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.632 of 2022, registered under Sections 354-B, 452, 506 I.P.C. at Police Station- Amroha Nagar, District Amroha with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶7

As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have barged into the house of the informant/victim on 20.11.2022 at about 09:00 p.m. and is stated to have outraged her modesty and even criminally intimidated her.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He has nothing to do with the said offence. The allegations leveled in the FIR stand falsified on the ground that it has been lodged after a delay of two days as per the allegations leveled in it, i.e., on 22.11.2022 at 12:47 p.m. Learned counsel has further stated that as per the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the date of occurrence has been changed to 22.11.2022 at 09:00 p.m., whereby it happens to be after the institution of the FIR. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit. The final report (charge-sheet) has been filed. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but could not dispute the said fact

¶10

as narrated in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

¶11

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

¶12

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Phahimuddin be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶14

that 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 or tamper with the evidence;

¶15

that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶16

that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶17

that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶18

that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶19

that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 23.3.2023/ Vikas

¶22

Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Phahimuddin v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phahimuddin 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

Gulshan @ Shishupal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashutosh Vs State of U.P. Adn 3 Others

Krishna Murari and Another Vs State of U.P.

Navneet and Another Vs State of U.P.

Chandan Singh Mangal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P.