Allowed

Dr Mahboob v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC14 Nov 2024ABAIL/10492/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in an FIR involving offences under Sections 147, 148, 307, 506, 120-B, 325 IPC. The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents regarding non-arrest during investigation and ordered bail on personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions regarding appearance, interrogation, and conduct.

Dr Mahboob vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:178721

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10492 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Dr Mahboob Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ambreen Masroor,Sadrul Islam Jafri,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sadrul Islam Jafri, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 251 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 506, 120-B, 325 IPC, Police Station Mawana, District Meerut, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶9

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

¶10

The applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has the apprehension of his arrest. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. The injured has not whispered a single word against the applicant, who has simply been made an accused because he happens to be the father of one of the co-accused persons, as such, it is a clear cut case of false implication.

¶11

The applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., vide order dated 18.10.2022 passed in CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8356 of 2022. He has not misused the said opportunity granted and is ready to cooperate during the trial also.

¶12

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

¶13

The applicant has no criminal antecedents. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶14

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

¶15

The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history has not been disputed.

¶16

CONCLUSION:

¶17

In the judgement of the Supreme Court in Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director AIR 2021 SC 4154, the Court has clearly held that if a person, who is an accused in a nonbailable/cognizable offence, was not taken into custody during the period of investigation, in such a case, it is appropriate that he may be released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.

¶18

Relying on its judgement passed in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 , the Supreme Court in Md. Asfak Alam Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2023) 8 SCC 632 has stated that once the charge-sheet was filed and there was no impediment, at least on the part of the accused, the court having regard to the nature of the offences, the allegations and the maximum sentence of the offences they were likely to carry, ought to have granted the bail as a matter of course. However, the court did not do so but mechanically rejected and, virtually, to rub salt in the wound directed the appellant to surrender and seek regular bail before the trial court. Thus, the High Court fell into error in adopting such a casual approach.

¶19

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶20

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶21

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Dr Mahboob involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶22

i. that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶23

ii. that 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 or tamper with the evidence;

¶24

iii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶25

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶26

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant.

¶27

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶28

Order Date :- 14.11.2024 Shalini

¶29

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dr Mahboob v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Mahboob 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rinkoo Rana Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sumit Jaisawal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vichitra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Brajpal Giri and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhura @ Farman vs State of U.P. and Another

Alka Alias Alkesh Devi vs State of Up