Allowed

Aas Mohammad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2023ABAIL/9438/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed anticipatory bail application pending filing of police report under Cr.P.C. Order includes personal bond and conditions regarding interrogation, evidence tampering, and travel.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed with personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties, subject to conditions of availablit

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194587

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9438 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Aas Mohammad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Prasad Mishra 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 - Aas Mohammad seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.131 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 342, 386, 389, 120-B IPC, Police Station Saroorpur, District Meerut.

¶8

Prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. is that the main accused called the informant on mobile phone and took him to some closed house in the village where some other companions of the main accused came and they procured the nude photograph and video of the main accused and the informant and on the basis of the same, a huge amount of money was taken from the informant by blackmailing him. F.I.R. was lodged on 10.6.2023 and investigation started, which is going on.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. He has been falsely implicated in this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on into the matter. It is also submitted that the present applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and for the first time his name came into light in the subsequent statement of the informant given to the I.O and the role only to assist the main accused Shashi Sharma has been assigned to the applicant. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact, the informant himself committed rape to the co-accused Shashi Sharma by administering her some intoxicant in the cold drink. It is further submitted that an application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the co-accused to register F.I.R. against the informant himself, which is still pending before the Magistrate Court. It is

¶10

further submitted that the prosecution story is not believable as it reflects that an obscene video and photograph in respect of the coaccused Shashi Sharma was also procured at the time of commission of the offence. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. He is cooperating with the investigation of the case and as such, he is entitled for anticipatory bail. In case the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. It is lastly submitted that co-accused Shashi Sharma @ Seema @ Soni Verma has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 26.7.2023 vide Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 8323 of 2023.

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of

¶15

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 the filing of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶16

9. The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the filing of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court 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:-

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶22

Order Date :- 10.10.2023

¶23

safi

¶24

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

Aas Mohammad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aas Mohammad 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

Chandrabhan Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Tara Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Bishnoi Vs State of U.P.

Aman Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Deepa Vs State of U.P. and Another

Omkant Singh Vs State of U.P.