Allahabad High Court
Farman And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 November, 2022
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8561 of 2022
Applicant :- Farman And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Ali Imam
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicants is taken on record. By means of the supplementary affidavit, learned counsel for the applicant has filed order sheet of the trial court.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail as the accused-applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime No.292 of 2018, under Sections 147, 452, 307, 323, 427, 354 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station-Mansoorpur, District -Muzaffarnagar.
Learned counsel for applicants has submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Initially, F.I.R. of the present case has been lodged under Sections 452, 147, 323, 427, 354 I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act against 12 known persons and 15 to 20 unknown persons. He further submitted that the applicants are not named in the F.I.R. He also submitted that injury inflicted to the injured-Shalu is simple in nature. The Investigating Officer without support of any medical evidence and without any life threatening injury to the injured filed charge sheet under Section 307 I.P.C in a routine manner. Earlier the applicants approaches before this Court by filing of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2150 of 2019, in which protection was granted to the applicants till filing of the charge sheet under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. The applicants have no criminal history. Further submission is that the applicants fully cooperated with the investigation. After filing of charge sheet, learned trial court has taken cognizance on 3.8.2019 and when the bailable warrant was issued on 28.7.2022, then applicants came to the know about the present case. Hence, the applicants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial and they are ready to cooperate with the trial. If the applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will never misuse the same. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director, AIR 2021 Supreme Court 4154.
Learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail to the applicants and has submitted that prompt F.I.R. was lodged in the present case. Name of the applicants have been surfaced on the basis of statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC. There is no reason for false implication of the applicants and there is sufficient evidence against the applicants. Thus, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is liable to be rejected.
I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aman Preet Singh (Supra), the Court has observed as under:
"10. Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170 Cr.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 is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.
11. 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 sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."
In Aman Preet Singh (supra), the Court has clearly held that if a person, who is an accused in a non-bailable/cognizable offence, was not taken into custody during the period of investigation, in such a case, it is appropriate that he may be released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicants.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicants- Farman, Nadeem, Rizwan, Parvez, Kurban and Usman be released on bail by the trial Court till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and, two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned with the following conditions:
(i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when 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;
(ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants shall cooperate in the investigation;
(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code; and
(iv) The applicants 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 their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 29.11.2022
Anuj Singh
