Allowed

Mustaq Ali and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2023ABAIL/6805/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by two applicants accused of various offences under the IPC. The court directed the issuance of bail with personal bonds and specific conditions, relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in Sushila Aggarwal.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to applicants Mustaq Ali and Pappu on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each, subject to specified conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:186910

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6805 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mustaq Ali And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dilip Kumar Goswami,Ajay Kumar Vashistha,Sanjay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Amit Khanna

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that he has informed the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 through WhatsAap, note of the same is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶9

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 169 of 2023, under Ssections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 354(B) IPC, Police Station- Rorawar, District- Aligarh.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He submitted that there are some dispute between the parties and the parties have already settled their dispute before the court below and the same was allowed by the court below vide order dated 04.04.2023, copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No.5 to the affidavit. He submitted that in terms of the settlement, the present anticipatory bail application is liable to be allowed. He submitted that the applicants are having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 39 of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that applicants has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicants are released on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants but could not dispute the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶12

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicants, they are directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶13

In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants- Mustaq Ali and Pappu , involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶14

(1) The applicants shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.

¶15

(2) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶16

(3) The applicants shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶17

(4) The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶18

(5) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicants.

¶19

(6) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶20

(7) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶21

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands allowed.

¶23

Order Date :- 26.9.2023 Krishna*

¶24

Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mustaq Ali and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mustaq Ali and Another 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

Priyanka Vs State of U.P.

Harendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sharda Devi Vs State of U.P.

Choncha @ Mohd. Hasib Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Archana Tyagi Vs State of Up

Abhishek @ Rohit Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others