Allahabad High Court
Saiyad Maz Urfi @ Neta vs State Of U.P. on 29 July, 2022
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6794 of 2022
Applicant :- Saiyad Maz Urfi @ Neta
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Tirpathi,Nimesh Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.66 of 2022, under Section 3/5A/8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station Khetasarai, District Jaunpur during the pendency of investigation.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant. The impugned FIR has been lodged against 20 named persons including the applicant. The applicant was neither present on the spot nor any recovery has been made from his possession. He further submits that similarly placed co-accused, namely, Asif Kuraisi has already granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 11.07.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 5296 of 2022, copy whereof has been placed on record. He further submits that since the co-accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail. Applicant has no criminal history.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.
Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant-Saiyad Maz Urfi @ Neta, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
(1) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.
(2) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
(3) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(4) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(5) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.
(6) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
(7) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.
In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.7.2022
Anuj Singh
