Allowed

Sattar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Aug 2023ABAIL/8708/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge allowed an application seeking anticipatory bail for two applicants accused of destroying revenue records and obstructing government officials under IPC Sections 332, 353, 427, and 447. The court held it was a fit case for bail pending the filing of the charge-sheet.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted pending filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC, subject to a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and specified conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:161411

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8708 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sattar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Joshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants Sattar and Intazar seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 121 of 2023, under Sections 332, 353, 427, 447 IPC, P.S. Chhajlait, District Moradabad.

¶7

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

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. It is further submitted that all the allegations made in the F.I.R. are false and fabricated and only due to animosity of village partibandi they have been falsely implicated in this case. Criminal history of applicant no.2 is well explained by way of supplementary affidavit filed today and as a matter of fact applicant no.2 is having no criminal history to his credit but a person of the same name holds that criminal history. The investigation of the case is going-on and charge-sheet has not been filed. Applicants are cooperating in the investigation. It has been submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶9

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

¶10

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

From the perusal of the record, it reveals that during the measurement proceedings by the government officials, an obstacle

¶12

was made by the present applicants and they also torn the revenue records and became offensive to the informant - Lekhpal. F.I.R. was lodged on 12.6.2023 and investigation started, which is still going on.

¶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, likelihood 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, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC before the Competent Court.

¶16

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each

¶18

in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer concerned with the following conditions :-

¶19

The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶20

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 or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

The applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶22

The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶23

The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of applicants in accordance with law.

¶25

Order Date :- 10.8.2023

¶26

safi

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sattar and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sattar 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

Rajendra Prasad and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Praful Srivastava Vs State of U.P. . and Another

Dipak Kumar Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Soveer Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Indal Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.

Ramsewak Alias Daya Shankar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others