Fajar Mohd. @ Fajari vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 9031 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 73
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5876 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Fajar Mohd. @ Fajari
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Vikram Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

The instant anticipatory bail application is being moved by the applicant (Fajar Mohd. @ Fajari) invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C. that he has every reason to believe that he may be arrested on the accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence in connection with Case Crime No.108 of 2022, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 308, 504, 332, 353 and 427 IPC, Police Station- Simbhawali, District- Hapur.

From the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court after getting his anticipatory bail rejected from the court of sessions vide order dated 06.06.2022.

Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter-XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.8072 of 2020 (Govind Mishra @ Chhotu vs. State of UP), hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned AGA as per Section 438(3) Cr.P.C. (UP Amendment) is not required.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has got no criminal antecedents and he has not undergone any imprisonment after conviction by any court of law in relation to any cognizable offence previously. An assurance was also advanced by learned counsel for the applicant on behalf of the applicant that he would render all requisite co-operation and assistance in the process of law and with the investigating agency and shall not create any hindrance to reach to its logical conclusion and shall not flee from the course of justice.

Learned counsel for the applicant has strenuously argued that the applicant has been made target just to besmirch his reputation and belittle him in the public estimate by the informant. Number of arguments were advanced by learned counsel for the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the accusation made in the FIR against the applicant by the informant. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgments in the cases of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, [(2014) 8 SCC 273]; Joginder Kumar vs. State of UP & others [(1994) 4 SCC 260] and Sanaul Haque vs. State of UP & another [2008 CrLJ 1998], to buttress his contentions.

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is not named in the FIR. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. Name of "unknown" has been mentioned in the column of accused persons. Further contention is that all injuries caused to the injured are simple in nature. Even in the X-ray no bony injury has come out. Next contention is that the material collected by the investigation so far is not credible or adequate enough at this stage to substantiate the indictment made against the applicant and the matter deserves deeper fair investigation into the case.

Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the co-accused person, namely, Shahnavaz, has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 22.07.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application (U/S 438 Cr.P.C.) No.5910 of 2022, therefore, on the basis of principles of parity the present applicant may also be granted anticipatory bail. The applicant undertakes that he shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not misuse the liberty of bail.

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application by mentioning that though the applicant has got no criminal antecedents, but there is nothing on record to satisfy that the police personnel are after the applicant to arrest him. The alleged apprehension on behalf of applicant is imaginary and unfounded one. Learned AGA has also submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made in the FIR, the applicant is not entitled for any relaxation from this Court.

It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

In the instant case, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant, all attending facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R., without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.

The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways, which may be adversely affect the investigation and subsequent stage of the case, the Court directs that in the even of arrest of the applicant-Fajar Mohd. @ Fajari, in aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail, till filing of the charge-sheet, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two local and reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer /court below concerned with the following condition that :-

(i) the applicant shall make himself available for the interrogation by the police as and when required. The Investigating Officer of the case would give 48 hours prior notice or telephonically inform the concerned accused-applicant to remain available to him for the purpose of interrogation and the accused-applicant is obliged to abide by such directions.

(ii) the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threats or comments to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the correct facts to the court or to the police officer.

(iii) the Investigating Officer of the case would make all necessary endeavour to gear up the investigation in utmost transparent and professional way and would try to conclude the same within a maximum period of 90 days. During this period, the accused-applicant would not leave the State of Uttar Pradesh without informing the Investigating Officer of the case and sharing his contact number.

(iv) in the event, the applicant is having his passport, he will have to surrender the same before the concerned SP/SSP of the District till the submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

In the event, the applicant breaches or attempts to breach any of the aforesaid conditions or willfully violate above conditions or abstains himself from the investigation, it would be open for the Investigating Officer or the concerned authority to apply before the court of session for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant and the court of session has every liberty and freedom to revoke the anticipatory bail after recording the reasons for the same.

Order Date :- 3.8.2022 [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

Suresh