Mohammad Mohsin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:182078

Court No. - 73

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2255 of 2023

Applicant :- Mohammad Mohsin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ankur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Mohammad Mohsin in Case Crime No. 0298 of 2022, under Section 409 I.P.C, Police Station - Civil Lines, District - Aligarh.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has no concern with the present matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further argued that investigation is going-on and till date no charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant. Applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is also submitted that vide order dated 20.3.2023 the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail but the same has not been misused by him. It is further submitted that the criminal history shown against the applicant is false and same does not relate to the present applicant. The embezzled amount has already been deposited in the concerned department. If the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty and will cooperate with the investigation. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest by the police any time.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that while working as Dak

¶13

Assistant, applicant made embezzlement of Rupees One Lakh as on several occasions he did not send RL/Speed Post and money for that purpose was misappropriated by him for his own use. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that he has sent the RL/ Speed Post and he is ready to hand over the receipts of the same to the Investigating Officer whenever he will be interrogated by the I.O. in the case. He had never misappropriated the government money for his personal use.From the perusal of the record it also reveals that the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail on 20.3.2023 but no instance of misuse of the said liberty has been brought to the notice of the Court.

¶14

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, 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.

¶15

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.

¶16

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under

¶17

Section 173(2) CrPC before the Competent Court.

¶18

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶19

In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his 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:-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶21

(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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶23

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 applicant.

¶24

Order Date :- 20.9.2023

¶25

safi

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohammad Mohsin v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Mohsin v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Riyaz Mohd @ Raju Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Makhanchu Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Alisher Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Aqil and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nitin Singh Alias Trivendar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harendra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others