Allahabad High Court
Aslam vs State Of U.P. on 31 May, 2024
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:100488
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4943 of 2024
Applicant :- Aslam
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ambreen Masroor,Sadrul Islam Jafri,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the informant today in the Court, the same is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Nazrul Islam Jafari, learned Senior Counse for the applicant, Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the material available on record.
3. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.94 of 2024, under Section 306 I.P.C., P.S.- Kairana, District- Shamli.
4. As per prosecution story, the husband of the complainant had purchased a plot from property dealer, namely, Mohammad Ahmad Khan, Babu Jameel, Salman and Aslam dealer, but the accused/applicants illegally occupied 34 square feet of land of the complainant's husband and added the land into the land of another neighbor and pressurized him to execute the said land in their favour. It is alleged that on 14.3.2024 accused/applicants called and threatened the husband of the complainant thereafter his health started deteriorating and he was taken to Dr. Jamshed's Nursing Home after which he was referred to Shamli and during the course of treatment he passed away.
5. The contention as raised at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. He submits that as per the alleged sale deed, the applicant is neither purchaser nor witness of the sale deed. As per suicide note, there is no allegation of abetment or instigation against the applicant. As per post-mortem report, cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera is preserved. Further contention is that there is no evidence on record which goes to show that applicant in any manner had ever instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. An offence punishable under Section 306 IPC would stand only if there is an abetement for commission of crime. Except general allegation, there is no other evidence available on record to show that essential ingredients of Section 107 IPC can be attracted, therefore, it cannot be said that present appellant had instigated, provoked, incited, urged or encouraged the deceased to commit the suicide. Essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are completely missing even the contents of abetment of suicide have not been there as provided under Section 107 IPC. As per provisions of Section 306 IPC, there must be an ingredient of abetment to commit suicide but in the present case there is no ingredient of abetment either by instigation or by any other mode has been made by the applicant. Prima facie, no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out against the applicant.
6. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. He submits that the applicant has criminal history of one case, in which, final report has been submitted, which has been explained in paragraph no.2 of the supplementary affidavit. He further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.
7. Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently 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, he 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.
8. 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.
9. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant- Aslam, 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 applicant 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 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.
(3) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(4) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(5) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 applicant.
(6) In case, the applicant 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 applicant 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 his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.
10. 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.
11. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands allowed.
Order Date :- 31.5.2024
Krishna*
