Allowed

Mohammad Iqbal Khan v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2023ABAIL/4983/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Nalin Kumar Srivastava allowed an anticipatory bail application by Mohammad Iqbal Khan. The court noted a settlement was reached where the applicant paid the requisite amount to the victim, and authorities did not oppose the bail. Bail is granted till the filing of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. with conditions to submit to interrogation and not flee.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted pending filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of appearing for interrogati

Mohammad Iqbal Khan Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:138459

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4983 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mohammad Iqbal Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sujan Singh,Jitendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rakesh Pathak

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Mohammad Iqbal Khan seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 643 of 2021, under Sections 498A/ 323/377 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act read with 3/4 Muslim Women (Protection of Rites of Marriage) Act, 2019 Police Station- Kareilly, District- Prayagraj.

¶8

At the very outset it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the parties have entered into a settlement in the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court Allahabad and they have settled all their disputes. They have also agreed upon that both the sides shall withdraw their respective cases against each other and the requisite payment has already been made by the applicant to the victim/ wife. An affidavit to this effect has been filed today before the Court after serving copy to the learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant has not opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶10

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, 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

¶11

the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶12

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.

¶13

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 filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶14

8. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶15

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:-

¶16

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

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicant.

¶20

Order Date :- 13.7.2023 Fhd

¶21

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohammad Iqbal Khan v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Iqbal Khan 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

Hari Shankar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Fareed @ Fareed Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vandana Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arman Mehandi Vs State of U.P.

Sanjeev Kumar Pathak and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Prabhawati Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others