Allowed

Tanseer v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Jul 2023ABAIL/4837/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. 4837 of 2023 before the Allahabad High Court, the court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Tanseer, apprehending arrest in a case involving stealing motorcycles. The court imposed standard conditions including furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with sureties and requirements regarding interrogation, tampering, and travel outside India.

What did the court decide?

The applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail till the filing of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties and complying with sp

Tanseer Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:148033

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4837 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Tanseer Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Criminal Misc. Exemption Application No.1 of 2023 is allowed.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State perused the record.

¶8

Apprehending his arrest in Case Crime No.611 of 2022, under Sections 413, 414, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 IPC and Sections 41, 102 Cr.P.C., Police Station Hasanpur, District Amroha, the applicant - Tanseer has filed this anticipatory bail application seeking anticipatory bail in the aforesaid crime number.

¶9

On a police raid, co-accused persons namely, Anas, Tabban and Nadeem were arrested by the police with two stolen motorcycles having fabricated numbers. In their statements they confessed their guilt and also stated the name of the present accused applicant Tanseer and another co-accused Taphasir. This fact is also alleged in the F.I.R. that on the pointing out of co-accused Nadeem, eight stolen motorcycles were retrieved from the house of co-accused Nadeem. F.I.R. was lodged on 10.11.2022 and investigation started, which is going on.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He has been falsely implicated in this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on into the matter. It is further submitted that name of the applicant came to surface on the basis of statement of co-accused persons. It is further submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession or the place

¶11

under control of the present applicant. It is further submitted that criminal history of the applicant has been explained. It is further submitted that the co-accused Taphasir, having similar role, has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 31.3.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. - 2392 of 2023. It is further submitted that the applicant is cooperating with the investigation. He has no criminal history to his credit. No custodial interrogation is required in the matter. In case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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 a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the filing of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶16

The anticipatory bail application is allowed .

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the filing of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court 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:-

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

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.

¶22

Order Date :- 21.7.2023

¶23

¶24

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

Tanseer v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanseer 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

Lalit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chintu @ Mukesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amar@ Rauki Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sufiyana Begum Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Mishra Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P.