Dismissed

Mohd. Arif and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC11 Aug 2023ABAIL/8743/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad heard an application for anticipatory bail filed by Mohd. Arif and Rahib in a case involving alleged assault on police. The Court observed serious allegations and injury reports corroborating the prosecution version, noting it was not a fit case for anticipatory bail even without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. refused and application rejected.

Mohd. Arif and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:163734

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8743 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd. Arif And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants Mohd. Arif and Rahib seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 121 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 397, 224, 225, 332, 333, 336, 325, 353, 186 IPC, Police Station Saroorpur, District Meerut.

¶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 their 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 earlier an F.I.R. as case crime no. 212 of 2023 under Section 392 IPC was lodged against unknown accused persons alleging therein that a robbery of mobile phone was committed by three unknown accused persons and subsequently all the three accused persons were arrested in that matter and the mobile phone of the informant was also recovered on 24.3.2023 and the motorcycle allegedly used in commission of the aforesaid crime was also retrieved by the police. It is further submitted that in the F.I.R. of the present case it has been alleged that in search of wanted accused Kallu @ Zishan in connection with case crime no. 212 of 2023 the police had made a raid in the village and when the villagers tried to rescue him, the named accused persons including the present applicants and some other unknown ladies made an assault upon the police taking lathi, danda and deshi pistol and also by stone pelting with intention to kill and some police personnels sustained grievous injuries in the incident. F.I.R. was lodged on 3.6.2023 and investigation started. It is further submitted that the police had no occasion to come to the village of the applicants in connection with the arrest of the so-called wanted accused Kallu

¶9

@ Zishan when all the three accused persons involved in case crime no. 212 of 2023 had already been arrested and the material recovery was also made by the police. It is also submitted that the police only with intention to grab money from the poor villagers had gone to the house of the applicants and damaged the household materials and when the villagers came there, they fled away. It is further submitted that the injured persons have sustained only simple injuries in the matter. Applicants are cooperating in the investigation. It has been submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that since the motorcycle allegedly used in commission of the crime connected with case crime no. 212 of 2023 was a stolen motorcycle and the name of the accused Kallu @ Zishan had come into light during course of investigation, the police had made raid in the village to arrest the said accused but violent attack was made over the police party by the present applicants and their associates and some of the police personnels sustained grievous injuries, who have corroborated the prosecution version in their statements given to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 CrPC. Inspector Brij Kishore Singh has sustained fracture in his hand and he himself and Head Constable Subhash Solanki received grievous injuries. Head Constable Sunny also received injuries in the alleged incident. It is also submitted that the act of the applicants is very daring and a police party while discharging its official duty was attacked by them and their associates. Ample evidence has been collected against the applicants during course of investigation.

¶11

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

¶12

In the present case, a police party has been attacked by the applicants and his companions and the statements and injury reports of the injured police personnels corroborate the prosecution story. Investigation is 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

¶14

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.

¶15

Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants, all attending facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that allegations are serious in nature, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants. Prayer made in the application is refused.

¶16

The application is rejected .

¶17

Order Date :- 11.8.2023

¶18

safi

¶19

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

Mohd. Arif and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Arif 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

Soveer Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

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

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

Praveen Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Pundhir and Another Vs State of U.P.

Anurag Singh Vs State of U.P.