Dismissed

Mehraj @ Mahraj Uddin v. State of Up

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2024ABAIL/9198/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by Mehraj @ Mahraj Uddin regarding an FIR under Sections 147, 323, 354, 452, 504, and 506 IPC. The court rejected the application citing the applicant's non-cooperation with the trial since 2019 and the dismissal of prior Section 482 petitions.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application was rejected as it was found devoid of merits.

Mehraj @ Mahraj Uddin vs State of Up — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:157390

¶2

Court No. - 68

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9198 of 2024 Applicant :- Mehraj @ Mahraj Uddin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kripa Shanker Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶5

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

¶6

The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to FIR/Case Crime No. 934 of 2016, under Sections 147, 323, 354, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Tajganj, District- Agra.

¶7

PROSECUTION STORY:

¶8

The FIR was instituted stating that on 3.6.2016 at about 9.00 pm, neighbours including the applicant, had assembled and was involved in illegal activities. In prosecution of common object of the assembly, they are stated to have barged into the house of the informant and started hurling abuses at him. They are stated to have outraged the modesty of his wife and confined his son Yusuf into a room. They are further stated to have outraged the modesty of his daughter-in-law also.

¶9

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

¶10

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

FIR is delayed by more than one and a half month and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

¶12

There is no injury sustained by anybody. The instant case is a classic example of false implication. The applicant is a patient of "Carcinoma left buccal mucosa", as such, he is entitled for bail.

¶13

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. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. In case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he

¶14

will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶15

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTY/STATE:

¶16

The prayer for anticipatory bail has been opposed on the ground that the applicant had filed a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 22587 of 2017 and failed, as such, the said petition was dismissed vide order dated 31.7.2017.

¶17

The applicant had filed another petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 30310 of 2019, which was also disposed of vide order dated 6.8.2019. The applicant is not cooperating with trial and is misusing the process of law. The N.B.W. has been issued against him since 28.5.2019. The applicant has very much the knowledge of the filing of final report (charge sheet) against him. Almost eight years have passed since the institution of the FIR.

¶18

The applicant is not entitled for bail in light of the judgement of this Court passed in the case of Shivam Vs. State of U.P. and Another, reported in AIROnline 2021 All 484, wherein it has been categorically stated that if after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and it is challenged by filing an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and failed, the accused persons are not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶19

CONCLUSION:

¶20

In Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2018) 13 SCC 813 , the Supreme Court has held that the satisfaction of the court for granting protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is different from the one under Section 439 Cr.P.C. while considering regular bail. In Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana and another (2023) 8 SCC 181 , the Supreme Court has opined that the relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest.

¶21

A three Judge bench of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.872-873 of 2020 'Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla Vs. Smt. Anita Agarwal & others' held that:

¶22

It is apposite to mention here the distinction between the considerations which guide the grant of anticipatory bail and regular bail. In Pokar Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (1985) 2 SCC 597 , while setting aside an order granting anticipatory bail, this Court observed:

¶23

Relevant considerations governing the court's decision in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 are materially different from those when an application for bail by a person who is arrested in the course of investigation as also by a person who is convicted and his appeal is

¶24

pending before the higher court and bail is sought during the pendency of the appeal. Three situations in which the question of granting or refusing to grant bail would arise, materially and substantially differ from each other and the relevant considerations on which the courts would exercise its discretion, one way or the other, are substantially different from each other. This is necessary to be stated because the learned Judge in the High Court unfortunately fell into an error in mixing up all the considerations, as if all the three become relevant in the present situation.

¶25

The decision of the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 clearly lays down that "the distinction between an ordinary order of bail and an order of anticipatory bail is that whereas the former is granted after arrest and therefore means release from the custody of the police, the latter is granted in anticipation of arrest and is therefore effective at the very moment of arrest". Unlike a post-arrest order of bail, it is a pre-arrest legal process which directs that if the person in whose favour it is issued is thereafter arrested on the accusation in respect of which the direction is issued, he shall be released on bail. A direction under Section 438 is intended to confer conditional immunity from the touch as envisaged by Section 46(1) or confinement. In para 31, Chandrachud, C.J. clearly demarcated the distinction between the relevant considerations while examining an application for anticipatory bail and an application for bail after arrest in the course of investigation. Says the learned Chief Justice that in regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. It was observed that "it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides, and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond". Some of the relevant considerations which govern the discretion, noticed therein are "the nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and 'the larger interests of the public or the State', are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail". A caution was voiced that "in the evaluation of the consideration whether the applicant is likely to abscond, there can be no presumption that the wealthy and the mighty will submit themselves to trial and that the humble and the poor will run away from the course of justice, any more than there can be a presumption that the former are not likely to commit a crime and the latter are more likely to commit it".

¶26

In Kartarey and others Vs. The State of U.P. (1976) 1 SCC 172 , the Supreme Court has opined that to be an 'absconder' in the eye of law, it is not necessary that a person should have run away from his home, it is sufficient if he hides himself to evade the process of law, even if the hiding place be his own home.

¶27

Considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid judgements and also the fact that the applicant is not cooperating in trial since the year, 2019, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant as the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant pertains to regular bail application and cannot be agitated u/s 438 Cr.P.C. at this stage.

¶28

In view of the above, the present anticipatory bail application is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

¶29

Order Date :- 26.9.2024 Shalini

¶30

(Justice Krishan Pahal)

¶31

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

Mehraj @ Mahraj Uddin v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehraj @ Mahraj Uddin v. State of Up

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

Gopal Saxsena vs State of U.P. and Another

Avnish vs State of U.P. and Another

Anuj Jawla @ Anuj Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Vikas Kumar Singh vs State of Up

Alka Alias Alkesh Devi vs State of Up

Monu Alias Vijay Kumar vs State of U.P.