Allowed

Vikram Mavi v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2023ABAIL/7803/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for Vikram Mavi charged with offences under various IPC sections. The court observed no firearm injuries occurred and the applicant played a general role, concluding he is a fit case for bail until the filing of the police report.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till filing of police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties.

Vikram Mavi Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:158692

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7803 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Vikram Mavi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kapil Tyagi,Ashish Tyagi 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 - Vikram Mavi seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 178 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 384, 427, 307 IPC, Police Station- Loni Border, District- Ghaziabad.

¶8

The informant has some altercation with co-accused of Sagar Mavi 8.4.2023 and due to that on 11.4.2023 the present accused applicant along with the other co-accused persons came to the house of the Nishant, Pawan Bhati-informant, and Rahul Bhati and opened fire there and also caused damage in their house. It is also alleged that fire was also made upon the wife of the informant, Smt. Chanchal Bhati. Subsequently some khokhas were also recovered from the place of occurrence. FIR was lodged on 12.4.2023 and investigation started.

¶9

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. It is further submitted that no fire arm injury has been caused to any of the injured persons, who are said to be three in number. It is further submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant and as a matter of fact he had no dispute with the informant and he had no occasion to make any attempt of assault with intention to kill the informant or his wife. It is further submitted that initially the FIR was lodged under Sections 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act also but during investigation the said offences has been deleted. It is also submitted that the criminal history of the applicant regarding two

¶10

cases has been explained by way of supplementary affidavit. The applicant is cooperating with the investigation and is entitled for anticipatory bail. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but however, could not dispute this factual aspect that no fire arm injury has been caused to any of the injured.

¶12

In the present case general role has been assigned to the present applicant and no fire arm injury has been found on the body of any injured. Criminal history of the applicant has been explained.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶18

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:-

¶19

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

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 8.8.2023 Fhd

¶24

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

Vikram Mavi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Mavi 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

Subhash @ Sudesh and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil and Another Vs State of U.P.

Waseem Vs State of U.P. and Another

Saurabh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rani Devi Vs State of U.P.

Azaad Vs State of U.P. and Another