Dismissed¶13

Fareed Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2025NABAIL/11877/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad HC, Deepak Verma J., order dated 10.1.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:5484) — anticipatory bail under S. 482 B.N.S.S. rejected for applicant Fareed Ahmad in Case Crime No. 1071 of 2024 (Ss. 333, 352, 109, 351(3) B.N.S., P.S. Kotwali Shahr, Dist. Bijnor); court held regular-bail arguments inapplicable at S. 482 stage; relied on Satpal Singh (2018) 13 SCC 813 and Pratibha Manchanda (2023) 8 SCC 181; A.G.A. cited medical report/grievous injuries and three undisclosed criminal cases; counsel Ashok Kumar Mishra and Avesh Mishra for applicant; G.A. for State.

What did the court decide?

The arguments tendered at bar pertained to a regular bail application and cannot be agitated at the stage of 482 B.N.S.S.; therefore the court did not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. ¶12

Fareed Ahmad vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:5484

¶2

Court No. - 70

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 11877 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Fareed Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Mishra,Avesh Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

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

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application has been moved by the applicant for enlarging him on bail in Case Crime No.1071 of 2024, under Sections 333, 352, 109, 351(3) B.N.S., P.S. Kotwali Shahr, District Bijnor, during pendency of the trial.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity. The applicant is not involved in the present case as he does not live in the place of incident. Counsel for the applicant submits that allegation alleged in the F.I.R. is false and baseless and not supported by any evidence. It is next submitted that the applicant's case is squarely covered under Section 482 B.N.S.S. It is submitted that the applicant is apprehensive of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that prima facie offence against the applicant is made out. The applicant has not disclosed three cases of criminal history. The prosecution story is supported by medical examination report and the injured has received grievous injuries. It is not a case of false implication. The applicant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant may be rejected.

¶10

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

¶11

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 Apex 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.

¶12

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that the arguments tendered at bar pertain to regular bail application and cannot be agitated at the stage of 482 B.N.S.S., I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶13

The present anticipatory bail application is hereby found devoid of merits and is accordingly, rejected.

¶14

It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial.

¶15

Order Date :- 10.1.2025 Meenu Singh

¶16

Digitally signed by :- MEENU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Fareed Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fareed Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Irfan and Another vs State of U.P.

Kalam Quraishi vs State of U.P.

Jumrati Ali vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Kumar Diwakar vs State of U.P. and Another

Aman vs State of U.P. and Another

Tabrez Khan vs State of U.P.