Allowed

Muslim v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2023ABAIL/694/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to Muslim, brother-in-law of the victim in a rape and assault case pending investigation, until the filing of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. on furnishing a bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of equal amount.

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

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 694 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Muslim Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

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

¶6

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Muslim seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 155 of 2022, under Sections323, 504, 506, 376/511 IPC, Police StationSakaldeeha, District- Chandauli.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶8

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

¶9

It appears from perusal of record that the present applicant is the brother-in-law (Jeth) of the victim/ informant of the case. It also reveals that earlier FIR was lodged under Section 323, 504, 506 and 354 I.P.C. but during course of investigation Section 354 I.P.C. has been deleted. It is further submitted that the applicant has moved Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15013 of 2022 before this Court challenging the FIR, which was disposed of in the light of the law laid down by the Ho'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273 vide order dated 1.11.2022. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation Section 376/ 5011 I.P.C. has been added into the matter. It further reveals that no specific date has been mentioned in the FIR as to when an attempt of rape was made by the accused applicant. Investigation of the case is going on. No criminal history has been mentioned against the accused applicant.

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

¶11

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 Court in the matter.

¶12

The application is allowed .

¶13

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:-

¶14

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

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

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.

¶18

Order Date :- 19.4.2023//Fhd

¶19

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

Muslim v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muslim 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

Smt Santosh Alias Santaresh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Ramkali and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mannu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vinita Yadav @ Seema Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anuj Vashishth and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jumma Vs State of U.P. and Another