Allowed

Shahad @ Shahadat v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2023ABAIL/7116/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in a non-bailable offense case. The court issued a personal bond with two sureties and imposed seven strict conditions covering investigation cooperation, inducement, travel, passport surrender, court attendance, and adherence to future court orders, citing Sushila Aggarwal.

What did the court decide?

Released on anticipatory bail with a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties, subject to seven conditions.

Shahad @ Shahadat Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:130053

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7116 of 2023 Applicant :- Shahad @ Shahadat Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sunil Kumar Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Sunil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant.

¶6

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.187 of 2023, under Sections 366 and 500 IPC, Police Station Jhinjhana, District Shamli.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 30.04.2023 whereas the impugned FIR has been lodged on 09.05.2023 i.e. after 9 days of the alleged incident but no plausible explanation has been mentioned. He further submits that the victim was medically examined on 10.05.2023 and as per medical report, all injuries are simple in nature. As per school certificate, the victim is aged about 18 years. Applicant is having no previous criminal history.

¶8

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant and have submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant and other co-accused persons, the applicant is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

¶9

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is 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

¶10

judgment of the Apex Court.

¶11

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Shahad @ Shahadat, 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:-

¶12

(i) The applicant 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.

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶16

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 applicant.

¶17

(vi) In case, the applicant 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 .

¶18

(vii) The applicant 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 his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶19

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.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of .

¶21

Order Date :- 3.7.2023/Ajeet

¶22

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

Shahad @ Shahadat v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahad @ Shahadat 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

Gulfam @ Arman Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Sudha Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shakir Husain Vs State of U.P.

Pintu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nanhey Lal @ Jhanjhan Lal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rajesh Kumar Mangal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another