Allowed

Badre Alam v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC5 Jul 2024ABAIL/3945/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted anticipatory bail to Badre Alam in a criminal case under Section 304 IPC involving death of the informant's wife. Applicant submitted defense that he was falsely implicated and no motive existed. Court relied on Sushila Aggarwal guidelines and imposed strict conditions including cooperation and passport surrender.

What did the court decide?

Enlarged on anticipatory bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each under specified conditions.

Badre Alam vs State of Up and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:134665

¶2

Court No. - 66

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3945 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Badre Alam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmaveer Singh, Shivendra Nath Singh

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ramesh Kumar Chaurasia

¶6

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the material available on record. None present on behalf of informant.

¶8

This anticipatory bail application (under Section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.74 of 2024, under Section 304 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Mau, District Mau.

¶9

In short, the prosecution story is that the impugned FIR has been lodged stating therein that the wife of the informant namely Laxmi Devi was ill and applicant advised the informant to hospitalize his wife in his daughter's hospital where the informant hospitalized his wife and during treatment she died.

¶10

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case with the ulterior motive. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant has no concern with the alleged incident. Neither the applicant has treated the deceased nor hospital belongs to the applicant. Further submission is that co-accused Dr. Nagma Khan is running a hospital without any degree and she treated the deceased and given injection due to which she has died. As per version of the FIR, the applicant has only advised the informant to hospitalize his wife in his daughter's hospital. Further submission is that as per version of the FIR as well as statement of witnesses, Section 304 IPC is not attracted in the present case because there was no motive or intention of the applicant to commit such crime in as much as prosecution witnesses also failed to attribute any strong motive against the applicant for committing crime in question, therefore, in absence of any strong motive false

¶11

implication of applicant in the instant criminal case cannot be ruled out. Essential ingredients of the offence under Section 304 IPC are completely missing. Prima facie no offence under Section 304 IPC is made out against the applicant.

¶12

Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. Applicant is having no previous criminal history.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶14

Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98 . The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶15

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Badre Alam, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.

¶17

(ii) 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.

¶18

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶19

(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

¶20

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶21

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98 .

¶22

(vii) 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. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition 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 proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶23

In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶24

With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.

¶25

Order Date :- 22.8.2024 Ajeet

¶26

Digitally signed by :- AJEET KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Badre Alam v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badre Alam v. State of Up 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

Virendra @ Shaktiman vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj @ Pramendra vs State of U.P. and Another

Sangam Yadav vs State of Up

Siyadulari vs State of Up and Another

Gopal Das Maurya vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

X Minor vs State of U.P.