Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Arif @ Anna vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 7 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19383
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 289 of 2025
Applicant :- Mohd. Arif @ Anna
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Alok Kr. Misra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Alok Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Anurag Verma, the learned Additional Government Advocate-I appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.
2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.447 of 2024, under Sections 103 (1) B.N.S., registered at Police Station Dariyabad, District Barabanki.
3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 30.10.2024 against the applicant and one Parveen stating that the informant resides at Basti for earning his livelihood. His parents have died. He received a phone call from his cousin Sikandar that at about 10.00 a.m. on 02.10.2024 when the informant's sister Reshma had gone to get some medicines at about 10.00 a.m. on 01.10.2024 she did not come back. The informant thereafter came home and reached at about 2.00 a.m. the family members told that the dead body of Reshma was found in a pond falling within Police Station Dariyabad, District Barabanki. Some money and a nikahnama was found in her purse which mentions the applicant's name. He received the dead body after the postmortem examination in the evening of 03.10.2024 and thereafter performed the last rites. Upon making enquiries thereafter, he came to know that in his absence the applicant used to come to see his sister. He also used to abuse and threaten his sister. The informant stated that he believed that the applicant had married his sister and thereafter killed her.
4. In the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail-application it has been contended that the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the applicant disclosing his involvement in a case under Section 8/21 NDPS Act in which he has already been granted bail. It has further been stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the informant himself has given an affidavit to the police stating that he had filed F.I.R. after being mislead by some person but after making further enquiry he came to know that the applicant is innocent and that he does not want to proceed to continue against him.
5. The learned A.G.A.-I has opposed the prayer for bail and he has submitted that the applicant is husband of the deceased. The deceased had gone missing on 01.10.2024, her dead body was found on 03.10.2024, but the applicant did not take any steps to search for her. He did not give information to the police regarding the victim having gone missing and he has not even witnessed the inquest proceedings. The learned A.G.A.-I has produced a copy of the relevant extract of the case diary for perusal of the court, which contains the statement of the informant recorded under Section 180 BNSS, wherein he stated that although the applicant had married the victim he was not agreeing to keep her with him. When the deceased had pressured for this reason the applicant killed her and threw the dead body in river ghaghra. Copy of inquest report mentions that the dead body was found floating in river ghaghra, whereas the F.I.R. states that the dead body was found in some pond.
6. Sri Anurag Verma, the learned A.G.A.-I has submitted that the trial court has issued non-bailable warrant against the applicant. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shambhu Debnath Vs. The State of Bihar and others: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3827 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon the following passage from the judgment in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi): (2020) 5 SCC 1:
"92.4. Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion; equally whether and if so, what kind of special conditions are to be imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the discretion of the court."
7. When we examine the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, what prima facie appears is that the deceased was living in her parental home and not with the applicant. The F.I.R. only alleges that the applicant used to visit the deceased in absence of her brother. The dead body of the deceased was found on 03.10.2024, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 10.10.2024 which was subsequently re-registered on 30.10.2024. Besides a suspicion expressed by the informant, there is no other material to even prima facie indicate commission of any offence by the applicant. Without without making any observations which may affect the outcome of the trial, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.
8. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. In the event of arrest/ appearance of applicant- Mohd. Arif @ Anna before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:
(i). that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) that 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 or tamper with the evidence;
(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court'
(iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and
(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)
Order Date :- 7.4.2025
Ram.
