Allowed

Khurram v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Aug 2024ABAIL/7678/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application under section 438 Cr.P.C. for an accused in an IPC sections 413/120-B/34 case at Meerut, citing a similarly placed co-accused already granted bail. Court granted anticipatory bail until filing of the police report under Section 173(2), with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; release on arrest upon personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, subject to stated conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:134930

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7678 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Khurram

¶5

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- A.C.Srivastava,Vinod Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Supplementary affidavit explaining criminal history of the applicant filed today is taken on record.

¶9

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Khurram seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 122 of 2022, under sections 413, 120-B, 34 IPC, P.S. Daurala, District Meerut.

¶10

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. It is further submitted that identically placed co-accused Shahnawaz has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5194 of 2023 by order dated 9.5.2023. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶12

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be

¶13

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.

¶14

In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶15

Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶16

9. The application is allowed accordingly.

¶17

In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶18

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

¶19

(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.

¶20

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous

¶21

permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 22.8.2024 Fhd

¶24

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Khurram v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khurram 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

Devkali vs State of U.P. and Another

state of up vs Nempal Singh so Lekhraj singhLekhpal

Seema vs State of U.P.

Somveer vs State of U.P. and Another

Haneef Khan vs State of U.P.

Khurram vs State of U.P. and Another