Allowed

Ansarul Khan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC31 Oct 2023ABAIL/9450/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the Allahabad High Court considered an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC in a case involving alleged attempted murder and criminal intimidation. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding personal liberty and the nature of the injury, the judge allowed bail.</para> pending police report.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with sureties and conditions to remain available for interrogation and not leave India.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:208265

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9450 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ansarul Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar,Shahbaz Ahamad Khan

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohammad Adnanul Haq,Zia Uddin Ahmad

¶6

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶8

Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Ansarul Khan in Case Crime No.156 of 2023, under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station - Gahmar, District - Ghazipur.

¶9

It was alleged in the FIR that on 18.07.2023 the present accused applicants along with one other co-accused came to the field of the informant and co-accused, Furqan Khan opened fire upon the driver of the informant with intention to kill, who sustained fire arm injury, the accused persons became offensive but people came over there and they fled away. FIR was lodged on the same day and investigation started, which is still going on.

¶10

It has been submitted 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. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

It is further submitted that no fire arm injury has been caused to the driver or any person alleged in the incident. It is further submitted that in the injury report of injured Banarsi Ram only simple injury has been found on his body and that too has not been caused by hard and blunt object. It is further submitted that there is

¶12

a property dispute between the parties in respect of the property which belongs to the mother of the applicants and some revenue and consolidation proceedings are already pending between the parties and due to the animosity of that the present FIR has been lodged on the basis of false and fabricated facts. It is further submitted that the applicant have no grudge with the injured Banarsi Ram, who is said to be the driver of the informant and they have no occasion to open fire upon him. It is further submitted that identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Furqan Khan, Minhaz Khan and Ibrar Khan have already been granted anticipatory bail till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.9508 of 2023 vide order dated 29.08.2023, therefore, the accused applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail as the case of the accused applicant is similar to that of co-accused persons.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but however could not dispute this factual aspect that in the injury report of the injured Banarsi Ram, no fire arm injury has been found by the doctor.

¶14

In the present matter the applicant is cooperating with the investigation of the case and no custodial interrogation is required in the matter at this stage.

¶15

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.

¶16

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

¶17

or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶18

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 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. in the matter.

¶19

11. The application is allowed .

¶20

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:-

¶21

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

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

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.

¶25

Order Date :- 31.10.2023 Shivangi

¶26

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ansarul Khan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ansarul Khan 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

Vijendra Singh Vs State of U.P.

Karam Chandra Pandey @ K.C. Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another

Govind Prasad Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Suresh Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satish Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nafees Vs State of U.P.