Allowed

Bashir Khan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2024ABAIL/7195/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants in a case involving offences under Sections 147, 307, 325 IPC etc., noting no specific role was assigned and investigation was complete. Relying on Sushila Aggarwal and Aman Preet Singh, the Court allowed the application till the end of trial with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till end of trial with personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties.

Bashir Khan and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:150991

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7195 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Bashir Khan And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants Bashir Khan, Saleem Fauzi @ Saleem Khan, Ashraf Ali and Kale @ Rafeeq Ahmad seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.170 of 2023, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 452, 354, 148, 307, 325 IPC, P.S. Mursan, District Hathras.

¶8

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

¶9

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. It is further submitted that the applicants are not named in the F.I.R. No grievous or serious injury has been caused to any of the injured person in this case. The injured / informant Om Prakash has sustained fracture in ulna bone whereas other injured Bhupendra has got no fracture, as per x-ray report. It is also submitted that no x-ray has been conducted for the injuries of injured Machhla Devi. It is also submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the present applicants. The applicants have no criminal history to their credit. The investigation of the case has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. It has been submitted that in case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. It is lastly submitted that during investigation the applicants were granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 26.9.2023 and 17.11.2023 vide Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 10519 of 2023 and 12067 of 2023 respectively till filing of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but however could not dispute this factual aspect that no specific role has been assigned to the present applicants in the alleged crime.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that on 11.8.2023 in the morning co-accused Buland tried to outrage the modesty of a girl of the family of the informant and when it was protested, the present applicants alongwith other named accused persons made an assault with danda and sariya and they also entered into the house of the informant and made assault upon him, his wife, his son Bhupendra and cousin Sanjay. They sustained injuries in the incident. F.I.R. was lodged on the same day and investigation started, which culminated into charge sheet. It also reveals from the perusal of the record that no specific role has been assigned to the present applicants in the alleged crime. No custodial interrogation is required.

¶13

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶14

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶15

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.

¶16

In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that :

¶17

"11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding

¶18

principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170 CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173 CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87 CrPC that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.

¶19

Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170 CrPC, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."

¶20

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till the end of trial.

¶21

The application is allowed accordingly.

¶22

In the event of arrest of the applicants, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶23

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available before the Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial.

¶24

(ii) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly, make any

¶25

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶26

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶27

In case of default of any of the conditions, the same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicants.

¶28

Order Date :- 17.9.2024 safi

¶29

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bashir Khan and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bashir Khan and 3 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

Tinku Alias Shaikh Hasim vs State of U.P.

Beena Rai vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another

Shekhar vs State of U.P. and Anothers

Smt Priyanka Sharma vs State of Up and 8 Others

Amit Soni vs State of U.P.