Dismissed

Mohammad Taki v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Jul 2023ABAIL/6608/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposes of an anticipatory bail application. The Single Judge rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that the applicant had absconded, was a proclaimed offender proceeding under CrPC Sections 82 and 83, and had not cooperated during the investigation. The court held that such a person is not entitled to relief under the law laid down by the Apex Court.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail is refused. Application rejected.

Mohammad Taki Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:143701

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6608 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mohammad Taki Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Virendra Kumar Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant Mohammad Taki seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.25 of 2021, under Sections 60, 63 Excise Act and under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 272 IPC, Police Station Srinagar, District Mahoba.

¶8

It is alleged in the F.I.R. that in the raid made by the police articles for manufacturing illegal liqour were recovered and two accused persons, namely, Brajendra Rajput and Sahil @ Guddan were arrested by the police on spot. Co-accused, Brajendra Rajput has confessed before the police that the three drums of sprit were supplied to them by the present accused applicant. F.I.R. was lodged on 05.02.2021 and investigation started and now charge sheet has been submitted into the matter.

¶9

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he 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. Process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC have also been issued against the applicant. 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.

¶10

It is further submitted that the accused applicant has no concern with the alleged offence. It is next submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered from any place in possession of or under the control of present applicant. It is next submitted that applicant

¶11

has no criminal history and during the course of investigation, he has been cooperative with the I.O. of the case and now after filing of the charge sheet, no custodial interrogation is required in this matter.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and he has vehemently submitted that after collecting ample evidence against the present applicant, charge sheet has been submitted in this case.

¶13

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 upto conclusion of trial.

¶14

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.

¶15

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.

¶16

It appears from a perusal of the record that in this matter after investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant. Summon was issued against him. Since the applicant did not appear before the Court concerned, punitive actions were taken against him, as he was absconding. Process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC were issued against him and he was thus, a proclaimed offender. The conduct of the applicant falls within the ambit of the law promulgated by Hon'ble Apex Court in Prem Shankar Prasad Versus State of Bihar and Another, 2021 SCC OnLine Supreme Court 955 . In the facts of the case, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 406, 420 IPC against the accused and thus it was explicit that a prima facie case against the accused was found. From the record, it reveals that the arrest warrant was issued by the Magistrate against the accused and thereafter proceedings under Sections 82, 83 Cr.P.C. had been initiated pursuant to the order passed by the Magistrate. Only thereafter the accused moved an application before the trial court for anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the Sessions Court. However, subsequently

¶17

anticipatory bail was granted to the aforesaid accused by the High Court and when the matter came before the Hon'ble Apex Court, it was observed like this.

¶18

"19. Despite the above observations on merits and despite the fact that it was brought to the notice of the High Court that respondent No. 2 - accused is absconding and even the proceedings under sections 82-83 of Cr. P.C. have been initiated as far as back on 10.01.2019, the High Court has just ignored the aforesaid relevant aspects and has granted anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2 - accused by observing that the nature of accusation is arising out of a business transaction. The specific allegations of cheating, etc., which came to be considered by learned Additional Sessions Judge has not at all been considered by the High Court. Even the High Court has just ignored the factum of initiation of proceedings under sections 82-83 of Cr. P.C. by simply observing that "be that as it may". The aforesaid relevant aspect on grant of anticipatory bail ought not to have been ignored by the High Court and ought to have been considered by the High Court very seriously and not casually.

¶19

20. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma (Supra), it is observed and held by this court that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of section 82 of Cr. P.C., he is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail."

¶20

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I deem it not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the present applicant. Such a person, who does not cooperate in the matter, is not entitled for any relief from this Court by way of granting anticipatory bail. Prayer made in the application is refused.

¶21

The anticipatory bail application is rejected .

¶22

However, in the last, learned counsel for the applicants has urged that direction be given to the learned Court concerned to consider and decide the bail application of the applicants 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 .

¶23

Hence, it is observed that the bail application of the applicants, 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 case (supra).

¶24

It is further directed that the Court concerned while considering the bail application of the applicants in the light of Satender Kumar Antil case (supra), shall pass an order strictly in compliance of the directions given in the aforesaid judgement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in letter and spirit, particularly

¶25

complying with the order dated 21.3.2023 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid matter.

¶26

Order Date :- 19.7.2023 Shivangi

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohammad Taki v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Taki 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

Ritu Patel Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Umashankar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Piyush Verma Vs State of U.P.

Jaswant Singh Vs State of U.P.

Harchand Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Rohit Kashyap Vs State of U.P. and Another