Allahabad High Court
Kayamuddin And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56972
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 5551 of 2024
Applicant :- Kayamuddin And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sunita Chauhan,Vinkesh Ojha
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Ashish Kumar Mishra,G.A.,Shyam Mohan Singh
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants - Kayamuddin, Mohammad Hanif and Taufeek seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.158 of 2023, under Sections 323, 308 IPC, Police Station Chhajlait, District Moradabad.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. Investigation in the matter has been completed and charge sheet has been submitted. It is also submitted earlier the applicants had approached this Court vide Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 10942 of 2023 which was disposed of vide order dated 16.10.2023 on the basis of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273. It is further submitted that the applicants were cooperative during investigation and have not misused the said liberty. It is further submitted that they are not a willful defaulter and are not deliberately avoiding the service of the process of the Court but they were engaged in the Court proceedings and their default is genuine and anticipatory bail may be granted to them. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.
4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that in the matter a process of non-bailable has been issued against the applicants and in view of the settled law laid down by the Apex Court in such matter they are not entitled for anticipatory bail.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record.
6. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial.
It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial.
It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that 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.
7. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that :
"11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170 CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173 CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87 CrPC that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution.
12. Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170 CrPC, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this."
8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and also taking into account that the punitive process of non-bailable was issued against the applicants by the court concerned, in my view, an exceptional case exists in favour of the applicants for consideration of application for anticipatory bail moved by them. Hence the present application is well maintainable before this Court as a rare and exceptional case in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Dharamraj, 2023 SCC Online SC 1085, decided on 29.8.2023. Therefore, taking into account the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till the end of trial.
9. The application is allowed accordingly.
10. In the event of arrest of the applicants, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicants shall make themselves available before the Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial.
(ii) 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 him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office.
(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned.
11. In case of default of any of the conditions, the same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicants.
Order Date :- 15.4.2025
safi
