Ali Sher vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40740

Court No. - 69

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10297 of 2024

Applicant :- Ali Sher Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Punya Sheel Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard counsel for the applicant and Sri Neeraj Kumar Sharma, learned AGA for the State. Perused the material available on record.

¶7

On 27.11.2024, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had passed the following order :

¶8

"1. Despite service of notice, no one appears to oppose the instant anticipatory bail application.

¶9

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶10

3. The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in Session Case No. 346 of 2024, under Section 354 I.P.C. and Section 8 of POCSO Act, P.S. Jalesar, DistrictEtah.

¶11

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He next submits that instant complaint is counterblast of the first information report lodged by the applicant against the complainant in the year 2022. Allegation alleged in the complaint is false and baseless. Learned Magistrate without applying his judicial mind summoned the applicant. Instant case is squarely covered under section 438 Cr.P.C. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would co-operate with the investigation. Applicant has definite apprehension of his arrest by the police.

¶12

5. Issue notice to opposite party no. 2 returnable at an early date.

¶13

6. List this case immediately after service of notice.

¶14

7. As an interim protection, till the next date of listing fixed for hearing on this application, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

¶15

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;

¶16

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶17

(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./C.P./A.C.P concerned.

¶18

(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶19

(v) The applicant shall not pressurized/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶20

(vi) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted.

¶21

8. In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate/concerned court is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant. "

¶22

Counsel for the applicant submits that pursuant to the said interim order the applicant is appearing before the concerned court and contesting the proceedings. Counsel for applicant further contends that the maximum sentence provided for the alleged offences is upto seven years. He submits that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2021) 10 SCC 773 , the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest in the above mentioned case. In case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶23

Learned A.G.A. for the State and counsel for the informant could not dispute the fact that the offences against the applicant are punishable upto seven years. He does not dispute the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) .

¶24

The Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) has laid down the guidelines with regard to enlargement of an accused on bail. The guidelines provided category/type of offences. Once of the category being Category-A are offences punishable with imprisonment of seven years or less. The Supreme Court in paragraph-3 of the aforesaid judgment has laid down the guidelines that after the filing of the charge sheet/cognizance

¶25

ordinary the summons are required to be issued permitting the appearance of the accused through Lawyer and the bail applications of the accused persons on appearance are to be decided without the accused being taken into custody or by granting interim bail. A perusal of the aforesaid guidelines would demonstrate that the liberty of an individual has been recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in term of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶26

It is further to be noted that as per Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also during investigation the liberty of an individual is protected in respect of an offence where the maximum punishment provided is upto seven years.

¶27

It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicant for relief of 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.

¶28

Learned Counsel for opposite parties have not placed any criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history.

¶29

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 applicant 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.

¶30

Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the applicant as recorded in the order dated 27.11.2024, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant, and the fact that the offences against the applicant are punishable up to seven years and adhering to the guidelines provided in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶31

In the event of arrest, the applicant Ali Sher , involved in Session Case No. 346 of 2024, under Section 354 I.P.C. and Section 8 of POCSO Act, P.S. Jalesar, District- Etah, be released

¶32

on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on 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:-

¶33

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

¶34

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court;

¶35

(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 concerned court.

¶36

In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

¶37

The application stands disposed of.

¶38

Order Date :- 20.3.2025 S.S.

¶39

Digitally signed by :- SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ali Sher v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ali Sher v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shilpi Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vibhuti Prakash Alias Vibhuti Prakash Sahu vs State of U.P. and Another

Archana Sharma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohammad Wasim and Another vs State of Up and 2 Others

Satish Chandra Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Mansur Ahmad and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others