Allowed

Haneef @ Shareef v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC6 Aug 2024ABAIL/1750/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, granted interim relief to the applicant Haneef debating false implication in an FIR under Sections 452, 376D, and 506 IPC. The court, citing Supreme Court precedents, directed future appearance before the trial court subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Granted interim anticipatory bail subject to surrender within ten days, cooperation in trial, non-interference with witnesses, and packing facts before recording of statements.

Haneef @ Shareef vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:53795

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1750 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Haneef @ Shareef Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Learned A.G.A informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including complete case diary and charge sheet in this case has already been filed and opposite party no.2/ complainant has been served at their end.

¶7

Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present anticipatory bail application has been moved by the accused/applicant- Haneef @ Shareef in Case Crime / FIR No. 597/2017, under Sections 452, 376D, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nanpara, District Bahraich, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant while pressing the bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. The FIR of the instant case has been lodged by moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the informant/ victim, in relation of the FIR lodged by co-accused Prabhavati registered as Case Crime No. 488/2016 at Police Station Nanpara District Bahraich and the accused persons of that FIR were under an impression that the FIR has been registered at the behalf of applicant and it is only on account of taking revenge of that FIR, as a counter blast FIR of this case has been lodged after getting advice of a legal professional.

¶10

It is vehemently submitted that during the course of investigation the applicant and another co-accused persons have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 7832 of 2017 (M/B) and vide order dated 13.4.2017, the liberty of the applicant was protected and as he has cooperated in the investigation there was no occasion before the Investigating

¶11

Officer to have arrested him and the charge sheet has now been submitted.

¶12

It is further submitted that the applicant would cooperate in the trial as he has cooperated in the investigation and would remain present before the trial court as and when his presence would be required. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedent and there is no apprehension that the accusedapplicant after release on anticipatory bail, may flee from the process of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty and no specific act or role has been assigned to the applicant and only her presence has been shown during the commission of the alleged offence.

¶13

Learned AGA, on the other hand opposes the prayer of anticipatory bail of the applicant on the ground that the applicant is accused of committing heinous offence.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it appears that the FIR of the instant case has been lodged by moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Prior to lodging of the FIR of the instant case an FIR was lodged by one of the co-accused of this case namely, Prabhavati against the maternal uncle of the informant/ victim of the instant case pertaining to commission of offence by the accused persons of that FIR. The instant FIR is said to be a counter blast of the same. During the course of investigation the arrest of the applicant was protected under the orders of a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and now the charge sheet has been submitted. It is undertaken that the applicant would cooperate in the trial and would remain present before the trial court as and when her presence would be required It is also highlighted that the role of only remaining present at the time of commission of the alleged offence has been assigned to the applicant without there being any over act. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedent.

¶15

Thus, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694 as well as in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1, Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0215/1980 : 1980 (2) SCC 565 and in Nathu Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others, 2021(6) SCC 64, MANU/SC/0360/2021, interim protection may be granted.

¶16

So far as the opposite party no.2/ complainant is concerned

¶17

she is stated to have been served personally at the end of the State and in this regard a communication which has been sent by the Police Station Nanpara, District Bahraich has been placed for perusal of this Court and the same is taken on record, which reveals that opposite party no.2 is personally served, however, in the interest of justice to provide another opportunity the case is being adjourned and the same may now be listed on 23.8.2024.

¶18

It is further provided that till the next date of listing in the event of arrest of the applicant or his surrender/ appearance before the trial court within 10 days from today i.e. 16.8.2024, which ever is earlier he shall be released forthwith on interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned, subject to the following conditions::

¶19

The applicant if not arrested earlier, shall surrender before the trial court within 10 days from today i.e. on or before 16.08.2024 and will cooperate in the trial.

¶20

The applicant shall Cooperate in the investigation and will make herself 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 applicant shall not make any attempt to influence the prosecution witnesses and will also not commit any crime during her release on anticipatory bail.

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶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 his bail and shall proceed against her 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 proceedings before the trial court in any

¶26

manner.

¶27

Order Date :- 6.8.2024 Muk

¶28

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

Haneef @ Shareef v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haneef @ Shareef v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shakeel and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Chandrika Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Guddu @ Surendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Shivam Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Neeraj Lona @ Jailor vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Lko.

Vipin Kumar ( Vipin Kumar @ V.P. in Chargesheet) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others