Allahabad High Court
Jamil Ahmad And Another vs State Of U.P Through Its Principal ... on 2 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:79073
Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4423 of 2024
Applicant :- Jamil Ahmad And Another
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Through Its Principal Secretary (Home)
Counsel for Applicant :- Karma Singh Yadav,Rajendra Kumar Ratnakar,Vikash Krishna Murti
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Vikash Krishna Murti, learned counsel for the applicants, Ms. Ifrah Islam, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the records.
3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No.74 of 2024, registered under Sections 286 I.P.C., 3(A) & 5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908 at Police Station- Mungra Badshahpur, District- Jaunpur with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that co-accused person Ashraf Ali has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 29.4.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.4292 of 2024. There is no criminal history of the applicants. Therefore, the present applicants are also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they will cooperate in the investigation failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.
5. The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by the learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and in light of the judgement passed by this Court in Nanha S/o Nabhan Kha vs. State of U.P., 1993 Crl.L.J. 938 and the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Paras Ram Vishnoi vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, MANU/SCOR/22410/2021 coupled with the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed on the ground of parity with following directions:-
(A) In the event of arrest of the applicants- Jamil Ahmad and Safiq involved in aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned;
(B) 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;
(C) 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; and
(D) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
8. 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 applicants.
Order Date :- 2.5.2024
Vikas
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
