Allowed

Mohd Javed v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2024ABAIL/7603/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench allowed an anticipatory bail application for the applicant in a theft case where the name surfaced from a co-accused's confessional statement. The court held that a confession to police is inadmissible and found no material suggesting the applicant would tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses, denying the state's reliance on criminal antecedents alone.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till charge sheet submission on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each and undertaking conditions.

Mohd Javed vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:125511

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7603 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Mohd Javed Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ashish Goyal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶7

The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant Mohd Javed in Case Crime No. 14 of 2024, under Sections 413, 414 I.P.C., Police Station - Industrial Area, District - Prayagraj.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the First Information Report was lodged against unknown person with regard to theft and that the name of applicant has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused. It is submitted that there is no other evidence linking the applicant with alleged crime. Applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant is innocent and has no concern with the present matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. It is further argued that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant. If the applicant is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and cooperate with the investigation. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest by the police any time. Criminal history has been explained in paragraph 3 and 4 of the supplementary affidavit

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer but does not dispute the factual matrix.

¶10

It is not shown by learned AGA that the offence in question will have impact on society at large. It is not shown that act causes harm to the society. The accusations arise out of dispute between individuals. It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicant for relief of anticipatory bail. Learned AGA has not

¶11

raised concern that any prejudice would be caused to free, fair and full investigation in the event the applicant is granted anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence.

¶12

Learned AGA for the State has pointed out the criminal antecedents of the applicant. No material or circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witness in previous criminal cases.

¶13

In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446 , the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:-

¶14

"We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history-sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been boo ked."

¶15

In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶16

In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent.

¶17

It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State.

¶18

In the instant case, the evidence is the confessional statement of co-accused while in custody of police. By virtue of the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, a confession made to a police officer under no circumstance is admissible in evidence against an accused. Inadmissibility of a confessional statement made to a police office under Section 25 of the Evidence Act is based on the ground of public policy. The object of inadmissibility in evidence of the confession is to ensure that the person accused of offence would not be induced by coercion, threat, or force to make confession and officer would make every effort to collect the evidence of the commission of crime apart from confession. Section 25 of the Evidence Act bars proof of admission of an offence by an accused to a police officer or made by him while in the custody of a police officer. Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that no statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation shall be used as evidence. No other material or evidence has been shown by opposite party which would indicate the complicity of the applicant in the alleged crime.

¶19

In view of the above, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail in respect of offence described in para-2 of the present order. In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till submission of charge sheet on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police office as and when required.

¶21

(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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶22

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court concerned.

¶23

(iv) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned/Investigating Officer about new residential address in writing.

¶24

(v) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required.

¶25

(vi) The applicant shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police.

¶26

(vii) The applicant shall maintain law and order.

¶27

(viii) The applicant shall at the time of execution of the bond, furnish his address and mobile number to investigating officer, and the court concerned.

¶28

(ix) The applicant shall regularly remain present during the trial, and cooperate with the Court to complete the trial for the above offences.

¶29

(x) Non presence of the applicant or his counsel before the court concerned shall be construed as violation of the present order and the court concerned would be at liberty to take coercive measures in accordance with law.

¶30

In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant.

¶31

With the directions made above, the anticipatory bail application stands allowed .

¶32

Order Date :- 5.8.2024

¶33

D. Tamang

¶34

Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA TAMANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd Javed v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Javed v. State of U.P.

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

Similar cases

Harbir vs State of Up and 3 Others

Board of Foreign Mission vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Yuvraj Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashutosh Chaubey vs State of U.P.

Merajul Hasan Zaidi vs State of U.P. and Another

Afzal @ Abjal vs State of U.P. and 2 Others