Allowed

Akram @ Mohd Akram v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC8 Nov 2024ABAIL/9728/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case relating to affray, assault, and criminal intimidation, citing lack of credible evidence and the applicant's cooperation during investigation as key factors.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail till the end of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and compliance with specified conditions.

Akram @ Mohd Akram vs State of Up and Another — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:190342

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9728 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Akram @ Mohd Akram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶8

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant - Akram @ Mohd Akram in connection with Case Crime No. 316 of 2019 under sections 147, 148, 323, 308, 452 and 504 IPC, P.S. Kotwali City, District- Bijnor.

¶9

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. It is further submitted that a specific role of assault with the aid of danda to the injured Arham was assigned to co-accused Aslam by the witnesses of the case during course of investigation. It is further submitted that the informant however, in his additional statement made before the I.O. has admitted that the injury to his son Arham was caused due to slip from stairs and FIR on the basis of false allegations has been lodged by him. It is further submitted that the bony injury found on the head of the injured Arham has not been caused by the present applicant. It is further submitted that during course of entire investigation the applicant has been cooperative and after investigation final report was submitted by the I.O. of this case and on filing of protest petition by the informant learned trial Court summoned the present accused along with four other co-accused persons to face the trial under Section 147, 148, 308, 323, 504 and 452 I.P.C. It is further submitted that co-accused Nafees and Ashraf @ Asraf have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9588 of 2023 vide order dated 24.8.2023 and Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9700 of 2024 vide order dated 29.11.2024 respectively. Applicant had been cooperative during investigation. No process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC has been issued against the applicant and he has not been declared absconder. Criminal history of the applicant has been sufficiently explained. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the

¶10

liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶11

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

¶12

It reveals from the perusal of the record that no process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicant till date and he has cooperated during the investigation.

¶13

In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.

¶14

It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.

¶15

It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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 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.

¶16

In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that :

¶17

"11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87 Cr.P.C that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.

¶18

In so far as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170Cr.P.C, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-

¶19

sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."

¶20

Hence, 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 end of the trial in the matter.

¶21

The anticipatory bail application is accordingly allowed .

¶22

In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till end of the trial on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶23

(i) The applicant shall make himself available before the court concerned on the date fixed in the matter;

¶24

(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 officer;

¶25

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.

¶26

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicant in accordance with law.

¶27

Order Date :- 4.12.2024

¶28

¶29

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akram @ Mohd Akram v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akram @ Mohd Akram v. State of Up 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

Harthirath Ram vs State of Up and Another

Vijay vs State of U.P. and Another

Satish Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Rafiq Ahmad @ Paggal Bab vs State of Up and Another

Rahul Verma vs State of Up and Another

Chotu@ Faizan @ Farzan vs State of U.P. and Another