Allowed

Mataru Baba v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2024ABAIL/203/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed in an FIR under Sections 307, 447, and 504 IPC. The court noted that no injury was sustained, the FIR's story was improbable, and co-accused had already obtained bail or protection. Protection from arrest was granted subject to conditions including surrender before the trial court within 20 days.

What did the court decide?

Protection from arrest granted subject to personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-, two sureties, and surrender before trial court within 20 days.

Mataru Baba vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:12449

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 203 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mataru Baba Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Nafees Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Learned AGA informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including up-to-date case diary and the investigation of this case is still pending.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present application has been moved by the accusedapplicant- Mataru Baba in Case Crime No. 548 of 2023, under Sections 307,447,504 I.P.C., Police Station Chinhat, District Lucknow, with the prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail as he is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as claimed by the prosecution.

¶10

It is further submitted that even if the allegations, as levelled in the FIR, are believed on its face, the role of firing has been assigned to the co-accused Ram Sumran and role of only accompanying him has been attributed to the instant applicant and other co-accused persons. However, it is a case of no injury and though in the FIR, the allegation has been levelled that the co-accused Ram Sumran had fired from the pistol, however, a gun on his pointing is shown to have been recovered, which renders the whole prosecution story as highly doubtful, improbable and concocted.

¶11

It is vehemently submitted that the main accused of the alleged crime namely, Ram Sumran has been granted regular bail by the district court vide order dated 19.1.2024 passed in bail application No. 85 of 2024 and other co-accused person namely, Suryakant Gupta has been granted protection from arrest by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.1.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 153 of 2024.

¶12

It is further submitted that applicant is a respectable citizen of the locality and is having no criminal history. The investigating officer without there being any cogent and reliable material/evidence is making all out efforts to apprehend/arrest the applicant and there is no apprehension that after being granted facility of anticipatory bail, applicant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. The applicant undertakes that he will remain present before the investigating officer as and when required and in case of submission of adverse report under Section 173(2) CrPC, he will remain present before the trial court as and when his presence would be required in the expeditious disposal of the case.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. on the other hand opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not confront the other factual submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that no person is shown to have sustained injury in the instant case. The role of firing with a pistol has been assigned to the co-accused Ram Sumran. However, a gun is shown to have been recovered on his pointing instead of a pistol by which firing has been claimed. The said co-accused Ram Sumran has been granted regular bail and other co-accused Suryakant Gupta has been granted protection from arrest by the Division Bench of this Court in the writ petition filed by him. The applicant is not having any criminal history and he stated to remain present before the investigating officer as and when required and in case of submission of adverse report under Section 173(2) CrPC, he also submitted to remain present before the trial court as and when his presence would be required for the expeditious disposal of the case.

¶15

Thus having regard to the reasons mentioned above and keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors., MANU/SC/1021/2010, Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors., MANU/SC/0100/2020, Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. v. State of Punjab, MANU/SC/0215/1980 : 1980 (2) SCC 565, and Nathu Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others:(2021) 6 SCC 64 , in the considered opinion of this court, having regard to the material/evidence available against the applicant, the applicant may be provided protection from arrest.

¶16

Thus, this anticipatory bail application, moved on behalf of

¶17

the applicant - Mataru Baba is allowed with a direction that in the event of arrest of the applicant under any process of the trial Court or on his/her presence/surrender before the trial Court within 20 days from today i.e., till 04 March 2024 whichever is earlier, he/she shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on his/her furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions:-

¶18

(i). The applicant, if not arrested earlier, shall appear before the trial court within 20 days from today i.e. till 4 March 2024 and cooperate in the trial and shall not seek any adjournment when the prosecution witness would be in attendance.

¶19

(ii). In case of further investigation or re-investigation the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and make himself/herself available as and when required by the Investigating officer of the case, even for the recovery of any fact.

¶20

(iii). The applicant shall not make any attempt to influence the prosecution witnesses and will also not commit any crime during his/her release on anticipatory bail.

¶21

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

¶22

(v). 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.

¶23

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 bail and shall proceed against him/her in accordance with law.

¶24

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.

¶25

Order Date :- 12.2.2024 Shravan/Praveen

¶26

Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mataru Baba v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mataru Baba v. the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home 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

Ikbal Ahmad @ Ikbal Ahmad Shekh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Chandraveer Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Raheem @ Raheem Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ashish Kumar Tripathi Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Ajeet Kumar Gupta @ Ajeet Gupta Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Secrt. Home Deptt. Lko.

Monu Tiwari @ Rohit Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 4 Others