Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Tabish Alishaan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 25 July, 2023
Bench: Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:49636
Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1305 of 2023
Applicant :- Mohd. Tabish Alishaan
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Tanveer,Abhishek Singh,Sumit Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
On 01.06.2023, after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. this Court had passed the following interim order -
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
This is an application for anticipatory bail of the applicant Mohd. Tabish Alishaan, who is involved in Case Crime No. 39 of 2012, under Section 3/5/8 of Cow Slaughter Act, Police Station, Kakori, District Lucknow.
As per the version of the First Information Report dated 25.01.2012 filed by the complainant Ravi Shukla, who is a News Reporter of "India Inside" that he had received information from his sources that at the shop of Tabish, selling of cow flesh was going on, then the complainant rushed towards Tabish Shop along with one cameraman and then one shop worker ran away and other one get caught alongwith cow flesh, whose name is Mohd. Akeel.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the shop does not belong to the applicant. Neither he was found at the shop nor any recovery of alleged cow flesh was made from possession of the applicant. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged in the year 2012 and charge-sheet in the case was also filed in the year 2012 and during investigation, petitioner was not arrested. It is further submitted that F.S.L. report in the case is still waited. It is further submitted that the First Information Report has been lodged on the basis of complaint, who is a News Reporter, who alleged that he had caught a person and confiscated cow flesh. There is no recovery from the petitioner either by the complainant or by the Police. The applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case just to tarnish the image of applicant in the society. It is further submitted that the applicant is apprehending his arrest in near future. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, the applicant was not arrested by the Police now the charge-sheet has been filed , therefore the applicant is entitled for anticipatory bail in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Siddharth Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and another; 2021 SCC online SC 615, Aman Preet Singh Vs. CBI through Director CBI (Criminal Appeal No. 929 of 2021) and Satender Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. and anothers (2021) 10 SCC 773.
It has further been submitted that the nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused has not properly comprehended. It is further contended that there is no possibility of applicant to flee from the judicial proceedings. The applicant undertakes that if enlarged on bail, he will never misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in the investigation.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. on the basis of instructions received has opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
After considering the rival submissions of the respective parties and perusal of the record, it is found that the alleged recovery of cow flesh was made by the complainant and not by the Police from some other person, not from the present applicant, nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused has not been properly comprehended; as undertaken by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no possibility to flee from the judicial proceedings, petitioner was not arrested during investigation and the charge sheet has been filed and in the light of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Siddharth (supra), Aman Preet and Satendra Kumar Antil, this Court finds it a fit case to issue an interim order of anticipatory bail as per Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, the applicant as an interim measure may 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, as an interim measure, the accused-applicant, Mohd. Tabish Alishaan shall be released forthwith in the aforesaid Case Crime Number on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the competent Court/S.H.O. concerned on the following conditions:-
(i) That the accused-applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by police authorities as and when required and will cooperate with the investigation;
(ii). That the accused-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; and
(iii). That the accused-applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
The papers regarding bail submitted to the police officer on behalf of the accused/applicant shall form part of the case diary and would be submitted to the court concerned along with same at the time of submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
In case there is breach of any of the above conditions or in case it is otherwise found for any other reason the bail is required to be cancelled, it shall be open for the State or the appropriate authority to move application for cancellation of bail in accordance with law.
Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted two weeks time to file counter affidavit in the matter.
List this case in the second week of July, 2023."
Although a counter affidavit has been filed, nothing has come to light which may persuade this Court to take a view, different from the view taken while passing the aforesaid order, nor the learned A.G.A. has pointed out violation of any of the conditions of interim anticipatory bail committed by the applicant.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the interim order dated 01.06.2023 is hereby made absolute and the application is allowed in terms of the aforesaid order.
(Subhash Vidyarthi J.)
Order Date :- 25.7.2023
A.Nigam
