Allowed

Tauhid and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jul 2024ABAIL/6071/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought in a complaint case involving sections 147-149, 452, 323, 326 and 506 IPC. Applicants claimed parity with a co-accused granted bail; criminal history was explained as arising from the same incident. Bail allowed on parity with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to all six applicants till conclusion of trial on personal bond with two sureties each, subject to stated conditions.

Tauhid and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:113938

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6071 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Tauhid And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Belal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri J.K. Chaurasia, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material available on record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Complaint Crime No. 239 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 326, 506 IPC, Police Station Bahadurgarh, District Hapur, with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶8

RIVAL CONTENTIONS:

¶9

(Arguments on behalf of applicants)

¶10

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants has stated that they have every apprehension of their arrest and have claimed parity with the co-accused Shahid, who has already been granted anticipatory bail by another Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 13995 of 2023 vide order dated 18.12.2023. Since the case of the applicants is at par with the co-accused person, who has already been granted anticipatory bail, the applicants are also entitled for the same on the ground of parity.

¶11

Learned counsel has further stated that the applicants have criminal history to their credit, which stands explained, as all the cases have been instituted regarding one and the same incident. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the judgement of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶12

(Arguments on behalf of opposite party/State)

¶13

The prayer for anticipatory bail has have been vehemently opposed by learned AGA. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him.

¶14

CONCLUSION:

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021, coupled with the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 825 without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed on the ground of parity.

¶16

In the event of arrest of the applicants, Tauhid, Aamil, Nofil, Bilal, Noor and Nahid involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:-

¶17

i. that the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶18

ii. that the applicants 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;

¶19

iii. that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶20

iv. that in case, the charge-sheet is submitted, the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶21

v. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; vi. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the anticipatory bail of the applicants.

¶23

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory

¶24

bail to the applicants shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶25

Order Date :- 18.7.2024 Shalini

¶26

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Tauhid and 5 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tauhid and 5 Others 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

Narendra Singh Chadel vs State of U.P. and Another

Puneet Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Sarif vs State of Up and Another

Sonu Rathor vs State of Up and Another

Nafees Ahmad vs State of Up and 2 Others

Shahid vs State of U.P.