Allowed

Islamuddin and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2024ABAIL/357/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants. The court noted their cooperation during investigation, lack of prior arrest despite a charge-sheet, and sufficient explanation for criminal history, deciding to extend relief under established Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions including appearance within 20 days, cooperation in investigation and trial, and furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 plus two sureties.

Islamuddin and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:19187

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 357 of 2024

¶4

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

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

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

¶7

No-one is present for the informant/complainant, while name of Mr. Avinash Singh is printed in the cause-list as learned counsel for the complainant/informant. It is also evident that even on 28.02.2024 i.e. day before yesterday learned counsel for the complainant/informant was not present.

¶8

This application has been moved by the applicants- Islamuddin and Nizamuddin for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR/Case Crime No.0360 of 2020, under sections 323, 504 and 308 IPC lodged at police station Huzurpur, district Bahraich.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that it is a case of false implication. General role of assault through lathi and danda has been assigned to all the accused persons named in the FIR, including the applicants, however, no specific role or overt-act has been assigned to the instant applicants. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation the applicants had approached this court by filing criminal misc. writ petition no. 16145 of 2020 and vide order dated 06.10.2020 the same was disposed of in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and thereafter the applicants were not arrested and now the charge-sheet has been filed. It is further submitted that the applicants have cooperated in the investigation and there was no occasion for the investigating officer to arrest them, however, since now the charge-sheet has been filed, the applicants are having reasonable apprehension of being sent to jail by the trial court when they will appear before the trial court for the purpose of securing regular bail.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on 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, Siddharth v. State of UP : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615 and Mahdoom Bava Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, arising of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.376 of 2023 . It is further submitted that the applicant no. 1 is shown having criminal history of one case, while applicant no. 2 is shown having criminal history of two case, however, the same has been explained in para-9 of the supplementary affidavit of date 19.02.2024 and paras- 2 and 3 of supplementary affidavit of 26.02.2024 respectively.

¶11

Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, opposes the prayer of the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that the applicants were not arrested during the course of investigation as a criminal writ petition filed by them was disposed of in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar's case (supra), charge-sheet has now been filed without arresting the applicants and the applicants are apprehending their arrest from the court as according to learned counsel for the applicants when they will appear before the trial court for the purpose of securing regular bail the disposal of their regular bail application may take some time and, in the meantime, they may be lodged in prison, which will not only curtail their personal liberty but would also tarnish their reputation/image in the society. The applicants are ready to cooperate in the trial as they have cooperated during the course of investigation and would remain present before the trial court as and when their presence would be required before it.

¶13

Having regard to the fact that the applicants were not arrested by the investigating agency, they appear to have cooperated in the investigation, criminal history of the applicants has been explained adequately and in view of 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 , as well as Mahdoom Bava Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation' case (supra), the facility of anticipatory bail may be extended in favour of applicants.

¶14

Thus, this anticipatory bail application, moved on behalf of

¶15

the applicants - Islamuddin and Nizamuddin is allowed with a direction 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. till 20.03.2024, whichever is earlier, they shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on each of them 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:-

¶16

(i). The applicants, if not arrested earlier, shall appear before the trial court within 20 days from today i.e. till 20.03.2024 and cooperate in the trial and shall not seek any adjournment when the prosecution witness would be in attendance.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(v). 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.

¶21

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 them in accordance with law.

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 1.3.2024 MVS/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Islamuddin and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Islamuddin and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. 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

Pankaj K Singh @ Pankaj Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Dharamveer Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Dept. of Home

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

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home), Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and Another

Gopal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Raj Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another