Dismissed

Saiyad Itrat Husain v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2023ABAIL/2327/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court held it was not a fit case to grant bail till the end of trial. The matter was disposed of with a direction to the lower court to decide the application in compliance with Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail refused; direction to the Court concerned to decide the bail application in strict compliance with Supreme Court directions.

Saiyad Itrat Husain Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2327 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Saiyad Itrat Husain Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Pranav Tiwary,Aushim Luthra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Saiyad Itrat Husain seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.211 of 2020, under Sections 504, 507, 419, 420, 406 IPC, Police Station Chetganj, District Varanasi.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the record.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and they has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. The investigation of the case has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶9

In this matter, it reveals that after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance has also been taken by the Court concerned. Offences alleged against the applicant are punishable with the imprisonment upto maximum period of seven years. Criminal history assigned against the applicant has been explained through second supplementary affidavit, which is on record.

¶10

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue

¶11

upto conclusion of trial.

¶12

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶13

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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.

¶14

Hence, 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 not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the end of trial. The prayer made in the application is refused.

¶15

However, it is observed that the bail application of the applicant, if moved, shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 .

¶16

It is further directed that the learned court concerned, while considering the bail application of the applicant in the light of Satender Kumar Antil case (supra), shall pass an order strictly in compliance of the directions given in the aforesaid judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in letter and spirit, particularly complying with the order dated 21.3.2023 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid matter.

¶17

The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶18

Order Date :- 10.4.2023 ss

¶19

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

Saiyad Itrat Husain v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saiyad Itrat Husain 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

Sattar Vs State of U.P. thr. its Sec. Home U.P.

Faizan Alam and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jaan Mohammad Vs State of U.P.

Pratyush Rajvanshi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raju Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Jai Narayan Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another