Allahabad High Court
Musafir And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary ... on 21 July, 2023
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?E-Court
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:145739
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7248 of 2023
Applicant :- Musafir And 3 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Avnish Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Heard Sri Avnish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.0197 of 2023, under Sections 147, 341, 307, 323, 504, 506, 365 I.P.C., P.S.- Kharkhaunda, District- Meerut, during the pendency of investigation.
3. As per prosecution version, it is alleged that the informant was going with his transgender partner Kiran and other companions Raja, Ritu, Nagma in Vehicle No. UP37P7645 from Khandawali- Kharkhauda to Bahranpur. it is further alleged that as and when they reached at the Uldhan road in front of Divine School, the accused persons, riding on Vehicle No. UP14AQ4181 Omni Car and one Sonata Car, stopped them and in order to kill them they dashed their Car on the back. It is further alleged that in the aforesaid incident the informants received serious injuries.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that parties are transgender and there are dispute regarding area. He submitted that it is a counterblast case filed by the informant. He submitted that earlier the applicants have filed a case as Case Crime No.0530 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323, 341, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Kharkhaunda, District- Meerut. He further submitted that as per statement of the injured, there are general allegations against all the accused persons. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that no case is made out against the applicants under Section 307 I.P.C. as intention of killing is not possible to kill any person by hitting the two offending vehicles. The applicant no.2 is handicapped person. The applicants are having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 9 of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that applicants have apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicants are released on anticipatory bail, they he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.
4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. He has submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made against the applicant, she is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. The apprehension of the applicant is not founded on any material on record. Only on the basis of imaginary fear, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
5. 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.
6. In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicants- Musafir, Tauheed and Chhanga @ Sabir, 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 applicants 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 applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
(3) The applicants shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(4) The applicants shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(5) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 applicants.
(6) In case, the applicants 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 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 his in accordance with law.
7. 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.
8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 21.7.2023
Krishna*
