Allahabad High Court
Mohd Zakir Husain vs State Of U.P. on 19 July, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:143816
Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3609 of 2023
Applicant :- Mohd Zakir Husain
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Narendra Deo Upahdayay,Vinay Bhushan Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Vinay Bhushan Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Varun Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Criminal Case No. 22 of 2017 (State vs. Jakir Husain) arising out of Case Crime No.197 of 2016, under Sections 193, 197, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C at Police Station- Robertsganj, District Sonebhadra with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
4. As per prosecution story, the named co-accused persons are stated to have conspired with each other and are stated to have shown the caste of co-accused person Shiv Shankar as belonging to Kharwar community which falls within the category of scheduled caste knowing the fact that he does not belong to the scheduled caste community.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to political rivalry. He has nothing to do with the said offence. He is not named in the FIR. His name has come later on in the statement of co-accused person Kanhaiya Lal being a messenger of sending report from one hand to another. Learned counsel has further stated that even that statement is not admissible in evidence. There is nothing on record to suggest that the applicant has conspired with the named accused persons. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
7. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Mohd Zakir Husain be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii). that 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;
(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;
(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
9. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
(Krishan Pahal, J.)
Order Date :- 19.7.2023
Ravi Kant
