Allowed

Baba Seth Alias Baba Khan v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Sept 2024ABAIL/8855/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in a criminal case involving offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC. Citing Supreme Court precedents on bail entitlement post-charge-sheet and non-arrest during investigation, the Court granted anticipatory bail until the conclusion of trial, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till conclusion of trial, subject to furnishing personal bond with two sureties and complying with standard conditions.

Baba Seth Alias Baba Khan vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:168747

¶2

Court No. - 65

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8855 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Baba Seth Alias Baba Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Chowdhury Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶6

List has been revised. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶7

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

¶8

The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to FIR/Case Crime No. 50 of 2021, U/S 323, 504, 506, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi.

¶9

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has the apprehension of his arrest. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution.

¶11

Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant was enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., vide order dated 21.7.2023 passed in CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6340 of 2023. Learned counsel has stated that the applicant has not misused the said opportunity granted and is ready to cooperate during the trial also.

¶12

Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

¶13

The applicant has a criminal history of two cases, which stands explained vide supplementary affidavit. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶14

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/OPPOSITE PARTY:

¶15

The anticipatory bail has been disputed but the aforesaid submissions of the applicant has not been disputed.

¶16

CONCLUSION:

¶17

In the case 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 by itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail.

¶18

In the judgement of the Supreme Court in Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director AIR 2021 SC 4154, the Court has clearly held that if a person, who is an accused in a nonbailable/cognizable offence, was not taken into custody during the period of investigation, in such a case, it is appropriate that he may be released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.

¶19

Relying on its judgement passed in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 , the Supreme Court in Md. Asfak Alam Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2023) 8 SCC 632 has stated that once the charge-sheet was filed and there was no impediment, at least on the part of the accused, the court having regard to the nature of the offences, the allegations and the maximum sentence of the offences they were likely to carry, ought to have granted the bail as a matter of course. However, the court did not do so but mechanically rejected and, virtually, to rub salt in the wound directed the appellant to surrender and seek regular bail before the trial court. Thus, the High Court fell into error in adopting such a casual approach.

¶20

On due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of " Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC online SC 98 ", the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail in this case.

¶21

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the

¶22

case either ways which may adversely affect the trial of the case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed .

¶23

In the event of arrest of the applicant, Baba Seth Alias Baba Khan 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:-

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

iv. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

¶27

v. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶28

vi. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶29

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

¶30

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.

¶31

Order Date :- 22.10.2024 Shalini

¶32

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶33

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

Baba Seth Alias Baba Khan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baba Seth Alias Baba Khan 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

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

Jai Govind Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Gopal Saxsena vs State of U.P. and Another

Pooran Lal vs State of U.P. and Another