Allowed

Iqbal Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 May 2023ABAIL/4937/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AHC granted anticipatory bail to Iqbal Ahmad in a case involving Section 498-A and dowry charges. The court held the applicant could be released on bail subject to specific conditions ensuring availability for investigation and non-interference with witnesses, relying on Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Released on anticipatory bail furnishing personal and two sureties on specific conditions until conclusion of trial.

Iqbal Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:107576

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4937 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Iqbal Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Anwar Hussain Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Anwar Hussain, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri R.P. Patel, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.169 of 2022, registered under Sections 498-A, 323 and 504 I.P.C., 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and 3/4 Muslim Women Protection Act at Police Station- Najibabad, District Bijnor with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

Admittedly, the matter is of family dispute. There is no injury sustained by the informant herein. The applicant had complied with the provisions of Section 41-A Cr.P.C., which has been annexed as Annexure No.8 to the affidavit filed with the anticipatory bail application.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has placed much 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 nonbailable/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. The applicant has no previous criminal history to his credit. 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. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in

¶11

the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶13

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.

¶14

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Iqbal Ahmad 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 court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

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

¶16

(ii). 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;

¶17

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶18

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

¶19

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

[Krishan Pahal, J.]

¶24

Order Date :- 17.5.2023 Vikas

¶25

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

Iqbal Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iqbal Ahmad 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

Imran Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Chetan Swaroop Alias Chetanya Swaroop Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suresh Kumar Bind Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Khurshid Khan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Tareekh Jafari@ Saiyad Tarif Jafri Vs State of U.P.

Shri Ram Chauhan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another