Allowed

Izhar Ahmad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2024/140/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application moved by three accused persons in a criminal case involving assault and molestation. The court observed no prior arrests, lack of criminal history for most applicants, and cooperation during investigation as grounds for granting bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed subject to personal bonds, two sureties each, surrender within 20 days, and compliance with specified conditions.

Izhar Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:9871

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 140 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Izhar Ahmad And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Learned AGA informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including upto date case diary. Charge sheet in this case has already been submitted.

¶8

Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶9

The present anticipatory bail application has been moved by the accused/applicants - Izhar Ahmad, Iben Hasan and Sanjay Lal @ Sanjay Kumar in Case Crime No.11/2023, under Sections 147, 323, 352, 354-Kha, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Jaitpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, with the prayer to grant them anticipatory bail as they are apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that it is a case of false implication and the FIR of this case has been lodged only on account of established enmity between the parties.

¶11

It is further submitted that general allegations of assault have been levelled in the FIR as well as in the statements of the prosecution witnesses including victim and no specific role has been assigned to any accused, so far as assault is concerned. However, with regard to molestation/ outraging of modesty of the victim allegations have been levelled against applicants, Ibne Hasan and Nand Lal, while in the statement of victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. she has alleged the commission of molestation to applicants/ co-accused Izhar Ahmad and Sanjay while in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she improved the story and levelled

¶12

allegation of molestation to applicants/ co-accused Sanjay Lal @ Sanjay Kumar only.

¶13

It is vehemently submitted that no visible injury has been noticed on the person of the victim at the time of her medical examination and only complaint of pain has been stated by her and thus the oral allegation as levelled by her in the FIR as well as in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are not corroborated by any medical evidence.

¶14

It is also submitted that during the course of investigation the benefit of Section 41-A Cr.P.C. was given to the applicants and they have cooperated in the investigation and charge sheet has also been filed without making arrest of them. They are ready to cooperate in the trial as they have cooperated in the investigation but they are having apprehension that when they will appear before the trial court for the purpose of obtaining regular bail, the disposal of the same may take some time and in the meantime they may be confined in prison while they have not been arrested by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation. Except the applicant- Sanjay Lal @ Sanjay Kumar, none of the accused - applicant is having criminal history and one case which has been shown as the criminal history of co-accused Sanjay Kumar, has been explained in para no. 22 of the bail application.

¶15

Learned AGA on the other hand opposes the prayer of anticipatory bail of the applicant.

¶16

Considering the facts that all the offences wherein the charge sheet has been filed are punishable with upto 7 years imprisonment and the applicants have not been arrested during the course of investigation and charge sheet has been filed without making arrest to them and except co-accused Sanjay Kumar, none of the applicants is having any previous criminal history, the criminal history of one case with regard to Sanjay Kumar has been explained. Thus, I do not find any ground on the basis of which the facility of anticipatory bail may be denied to the applicants, more so when they have not been arrested by the Investigating Agency and nothing has been brought before this Court, which may suggest that they have not cooperated in the investigation.

¶17

In result the anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicants- Izhar Ahmad, Iben Hasan and Sanjay Lal @ Sanjay Kumar is hereby allowed and it is provided that in the event of arrest of the applicants under any process of the trial court or on their appearance/ surrender before the trial court within 20 days from today i.e. on or before 21.02.2024

¶18

they shall be released on anticipatory bail in the abovementioned case, on their furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:-

¶19

The applicants if not arrested earlier, shall surrender before the trial court within 20 days from today i.e. on or before 21,02.2024 and will cooperate in the trial.

¶20

The applicants shall Cooperate in the investigation and will make himself available as and when required by the Investigating officer of the case, even for the recovery of any fact, if the case is directed to be further investigated.

¶21

The applicants shall not make any attempt to influence the prosecution witnesses and will also not commit any crime during his release on anticipatory bail.

¶22

The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and especially when the prosecution witnesses are present in court.

¶23

The applicants 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.

¶24

If in the opinion of the trial court default of any of the condition placed above is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and shall proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶25

It is clarified that all the observations contained in this order are only for disposal of this anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial proceedings in any manner.

¶26

Order Date :- 2.2.2024 Muk

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Izhar Ahmad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Izhar Ahmad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shoeb Iqbal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Santosh Gupta @ Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Rahul Singh @ Rahul Somvanshi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Confidential Lko. and Another

Ajeet Kumar Gupta @ Ajeet Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Mohd. Kaleem Shakoor and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. (Home), Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and 2 Others

Om Prakash Pandey @ Gatey Pandey Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.