Allahabad High Court
Salman And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 30 May, 2024
Author: Krishan Pahal
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:98731
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5494 of 2024
Applicant :- Salman And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Waseem
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Mohammad Waseem, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Sunil Kumar, 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 applicants in Case Crime No.357 of 2018 registered under Sections 3/5/8 U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 at Police Station- Devrania, District Bareilly with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants were enlarged on anticipatory bail till the submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.10934 of 2023. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicants have not misused the opportunity granted earlier and have co-operated during investigation.
5. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgement of theSupreme Court in Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director AIR 2021 SC 4154, wherein the Court has clearly held that if a person, who is an accused in a non-bailable/cognizable offence, was not taken into custody during the period of investigation, in such a case, it is appropriate that he may be released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.
6. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. The applicants have apprehension of their arrest. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they have co-operated in the investigation and are ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
7. 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 applicants.
8. Relying on its judgement passed in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Supreme Court in Md. Asfak Alam Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2023) 8 SCC 632 has stated that once the charge-sheet was filed and there was no impediment, at least on the part of the accused, the court having regard to the nature of the offences, the allegations and the maximum sentence of the offences they were likely to carry, ought to have granted the bail as a matter of course. However, the court did not do so but mechanically rejected and, virtually, to rub salt in the wound directed the appellant to surrender and seek regular bail before the trial court. Thus, the High Court fell into error in adopting such a casual approach.
9. On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are 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 applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of theSupreme Court.
10. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants-Salman, Dr. Ishtiyaq Ahmad and Dr. Arif @ Arif Mansuri be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i). that 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 or tamper with the evidence;
(ii). that the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;
(iii). that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;
(iv). that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;
(v). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.
11. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial.
Order Date :- 30.5.2024
Ravi/-
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
