Allowed

Arif v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC4 Sept 2024ABAIL/8763/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Arif under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court granted bail based on parity with a co-accused and observed that criminal history alone cannot deny bail absent material showing risk to investigation or witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties subject to standard conditions.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:143123

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8763 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Arif Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jagdish Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶7

The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Case Crime No. 60 of 2023, under Section 379 IPC, Police Station Shamli, District Shamli, with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶8

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has the apprehension of his arrest and has claimed parity with the co-accused Parvez, 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. 2309 of 2024 vide order dated 13.3.2024.

¶9

Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant has criminal history of two cases, which stands explained. Since the case of the applicant is at par with the co-accused who has already been granted anticipatory bail, the applicant is also entitled for the same on the ground of parity.

¶10

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

¶11

In 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

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

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Arif 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

ii. that 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 or tamper with the evidence;

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶23

Order Date :- 4.9.2024 Shalini

¶24

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶25

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

Arif v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arif 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

Smt. Rajkumari vs State of U.P. and Another

Susheela Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

Vimal Kumar Shukla vs State of U.P.

Adil Rana vs State of U.P. and Another

Aamir vs State of U.P. and Another

Sajid Alias Mainuddin Abbasi vs State of Up and Another