Allowed

Salman and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Apr 2023ABAIL/2974/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to applicants in a criminal case involving sections 147, 452, 323, 324, 308, 504, 506 IPC. The court held that non-arrest during investigation entitles release on bail, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial subject to personal bond and conditions including appearance, no tampering, and no leaving India.

Salman and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2974 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Salman And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Garun Pal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶6

The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to FIR/Case Crime No. 373 of 2019, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 324, 308, 504, 506 IPC, P.S.- Farah, District- Mathura.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants are maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive. The applicants have nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has stated that the applicants are not named in the FIR. Their names have come up in the supplementary statement of the injured person. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicants had complied with the notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and have not misused the said opportunity granted and is ready to cooperate during the trial also. The said compliance report is filed as Annexure-11 to the affidavit accompanying the application.

¶8

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.

¶9

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.

¶10

It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicants have cooperated in the investigation. They have not misused the liberty granted to them. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed, they will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶12

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicants are entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶13

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed.

¶14

In the event of arrest of the applicants, Salman, Shahid, Shahrukh and Rakesh Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶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 him 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 previous permission of the court;

¶18

iv. that the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence are exempted;

¶19

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicants.

¶20

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶21

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶22

Order Date :- 21.4.2023 Shalini

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Salman and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salman and 3 Others 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

Deepak Pachauri Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramesh Chandra Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Nabab Khan Pathan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Sumant @ Sumant Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Alok Kumar Vs State of U.P.