Allowed

Afroj and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2024ABAIL/9232/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicants in a case involving sections 147, 148, 323 IPC etc. The Court held that criminal antecedents alone do not deny bail unless specific material shows risk of tampering or intimidation, which was absent here.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail subject to personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties and compliance with conditions regarding investigation and presence at trial.

Afroj and Another vs State of U.P. — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:158053

¶2

Court No. - 73

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9232 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Afroj And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Kapil Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶6

The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants - Afroj and Salman, in Case Crime No. 160 of 2024, under sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 506, 336, 308 I.P.C., Police Station Dhaulana, District Hapur.

¶7

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

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that there is general allegation of assault and the injuries sustained by three injured are simple in nature. The injured has suffered lacerated wound which is indicative of the fact that the injuries have been caused by hard and blunt object and are simple in nature. Applicants have no previous criminal history. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. No prima facie case is made out against the applicants. If the applicants are enlarged on anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty and cooperate with the investigation. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest by the police any time.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer and on instructions submits that as per doctor the injuries were simple in nature. At the best, the offence under section 325 I.P.C. would be made out which is bailable in nature.

¶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 applicants 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 applicants are 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 applicants. 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:- "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 booked."

¶14

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.

¶15

In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicants are concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicants 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 applicants in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, they 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 applicants just on the ground that they had criminal antecedents.

¶16

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 applicants 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.

¶17

10A. It is settled principle of law that a person who is accused of committing criminal offence is required to prosecuted in respect of the act committed by him. Over-implication of an accused refers to situations where an individual is unduly or excessively implicated in a crime or wrongdoing. Such over implication may be based on external influence or false accusations. It is crucial for the justice delivery system to balance the need to hold perpetrators accountable with protecting the rights of the accused. Prosecuting a person for a higher offence than the offence committed by accused would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. It is important that the rule of law prevail and the prosecution of an accused is based on objective assessment of the material and circumstances.

¶18

In view of the above, the applicants are granted anticipatory bail in respect of offence described in para 1 of the present order. In the event of arrest of the applicants, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their 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:-

¶19

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

¶20

(ii) The applicants 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 themselves from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(vi) The applicants 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.

¶25

(vii) The applicants shall maintain law and order.

¶26

(viii) The applicants shall at the time of execution of the bond,

¶27

furnish their address and mobile number to investigating officer, and the court concerned.

¶28

(ix) The applicants 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 applicants or their 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 applicants.

¶31

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

¶32

Order Date :- 26.9.2024

¶33

K.K. Maurya

¶34

Digitally signed by :- KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Afroj and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afroj and Another 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abrar Ahmad vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Abhishek Pratap Singh vs State of Up and Another

Sanjay Singh Yadav vs State of Up and Another

Dushyant Chaudhary vs Union of India and Another

Aas Mohammad and Another vs Union of India and Another

Shamshad Husain and Another vs State of U.P. and Another