Allowed

Sagir Ahmad Ansari v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2023ABAIL/9530/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge bench granted anticipatory bail to Sagir Ahmad Ansari under Section 438 Cr.P.C. He is acquitted of theft allegations but granted bail due to false implication. Conditions include surrendering passport and personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement of applicant on anticipatory bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with surities subject to specific conditions.

Sagir Ahmad Ansari Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:182834

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9530 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Sagir Ahmad Ansari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anup Dhar Dubey

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Mr. Anup Dhar Dubey, learned counsel for the informant.

¶7

This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case No.2693/2011 arising out of Case Crime No.341 of 2010, under Sections 120-B, 379, 406, 504, 419, 420, 506 IPC, Police Station Khorabar, District Gorakhpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant in fact no such incident has taken place as alleged in the impugned FIR. The impugned FIR has been lodged through an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. after 1 and 1/2 years of the alleged incident for which no plausible explanation has been offered. After investigation, charge sheet has been submitted only against the applicant on 16.06.2012 and the court below has taken cognizance on 19.12.2012. He further submits that the summon or warrant has never been served upon the applicant and, lastly, the court below has issued summon against the applicant on 29.05.2023, then the police concerned served the same to the applicant, then for the first time, the applicant got knowledge of the present case. He further submits that the dispute is with regard to a motorcycle and sale and purchase of fish between the applicant and the informant. The applicant has never theft the motorcycle of the informant. The said mother cycle has not been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 23 of the affidavit. He further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶10

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 . The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶11

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Sagir Ahmad Ansari, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶12

(i) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶13

(ii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶14

(iii) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶15

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶16

(v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 .

¶17

(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶18

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶19

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.

¶20

Order Date :- 21.9.2023 Ajeet

¶21

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sagir Ahmad Ansari v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagir Ahmad Ansari 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

Renuka Lily Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mukhaya Arakshi 308 Ompal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satpal and Another Vs State of U.P.

Kasim Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P.

Khushbu @ Mohit Kumar Vs State of U.P.