Allahabad High Court
Naimul vs State Of U.P. on 22 August, 2023
Bench: Nalin Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:169129
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9140 of 2023
Applicant :- Naimul
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Rai
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the material available on record.
2. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant-Naimul in connection with Case Crime No. 145 of 2013, under section 307 IPC, P.S. Najibabad, District Bijnor.
3. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that on 22.03.2013 at about 7:00 p.m., co-accused, Ahsan @ Boni came to the house of the informant along with his real brother, Shamshad Ahmad and took his sons with them and they made an assault upon them with intention to kill and threatened them on the road. F.I.R. was lodged on 25.03.2013 against three named accused persons and investigation started, which is still going on.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Charge sheet in the matter has been submitted. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.
5. It is further submitted that during investigation, no evidence has been found against the present applicant by the I.O. of the case and as a result thereof, final report was filed against the present applicant and he was not charge sheeted in this matter. It is next submitted that during the course of trial, on the basis of statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the present applicant along with other co-accused Shamshad was summoned to face trial under Section 307 I.P.C. by the concerned Sessions court exercising its power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.. It is next submitted that after summoning of the accused applicant, till today, no processes under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. have been issued by the concerned court against the present applicant and he has not been declared as a proclaimed offender and copy of the charge sheet has been filed in this regard. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact, co-accused, Ahsan @ Boni to face trial in Session No.276 of 2013 had been acquitted by the trial court on merits vide judgment and order dated 17.01.2018 and the same set of evidence has been found against the present applicant. It is also submitted that during the course of investigation, the applicant has been cooperative and he is having no criminal history to his credit and as such, he is entitled for anticipatory bail.
6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. However, he could not dispute this fact that co-accused, Ahsan @ Boni has been acquitted of the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. in this matter by the trial court.
7. It appears from the perusal of the record that after filing of the charge sheet, now no custodial interrogation is required to the present applicant.
8. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.
It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.
It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion.
9. Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till conclusion of trial in the matter.
10. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
11. In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his 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 :-
(i) 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 or tamper with the evidence.
(ii) The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
(iii) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicant in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 22.8.2023
Shivangi
