Allowed

Faizan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Aug 2024ABAIL/3069/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application for an accused in cases involving stone pelting and damage to public property. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that bail should be granted as a matter of course once a charge-sheet is filed, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Faizan granted anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing personal bond and two sureties, subject to standard conditions including passport surrender and trial attendance.

Faizan vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:145654

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3069 of 2024 Applicant :- Faizan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Shubham Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Shubham, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Arvind Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶6

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No.178 of 2022 registered under Sections 147, 335, 427, 120B IPC and Section 3/5 Prevention of Damages Public Property Act, 1984 at Police Station- Kareli, District Prayagraj with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶7

The FIR of the present case was lodged against unknown miscreants on 11.06.2022 and according to the FIR, they did stone pelting and due to their stone pelting the property of LNT Company was damaged.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is not named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He was not present at the spot of the crime scene as alleged in the FIR. 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. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has cooperated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶9

The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned Additional Advocate General on the ground that the applicant is a habitual offender and has committed several offences of similar nature, although he has not disputed the fact that all the cases are of similar nature but has stated that the applicant should not be enlarged on bail as he has no

¶10

apprehension of arrest as the final report (charge-sheet) has been submitted already and there is nothing on record to suggest that that any coercive measure has been taken up by the trial court concerned.

¶11

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that there is every apprehension of his arrest in his mind as every now and then coercive measures are being taken against the applicant in the case.

¶12

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.

¶13

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court.

¶14

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Faizan be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

(i). 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;

¶16

(ii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶17

(iii). that the applicant shall surrender his passport before the court concerned, if he has so.

¶18

(iv). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution

¶19

witness;

¶20

(v). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶21

(vi). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶22

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.

¶23

Order Date :- 6.9.2024 Ravi/-

¶24

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAVI KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Faizan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faizan v. State of U.P. 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

Neeraj Agarawal Vs Union of India Thru. Sontosh Tiwari Senior Intelligence Officer Directorate Revenue Lko

Amar Pal Maurya Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko.

Aquib Nasim Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Sameer Saifi vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Kumar vs State of Up and Another

Sachin @ Mintu vs State of Up and Another