Shahrukh Ali And Another vs State Of U.P.
2025 Latest Caselaw 5428 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Shahrukh Ali And Another vs State Of U.P. on 24 February, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26589
 
Court No. - 82
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11592 of 2024
 

 
Applicant :- Shahrukh Ali And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Ranjeet Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Arbind Kumar Soni,G.A.,Virendra Singh Patel
 

 
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants- Shahrukh Ali and Afsar Ali seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 221 of 2023, under Sections 342, 368 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali, District- Jhansi.

3. It is alleged in the FIR that all the accused applicants kept the minor daughter of the informant under wrongful confinement in their house and they are trying for forceful marriage of the victim without any conversion of religion with the main accused Suhail Ali @ Sahil. FIR was lodged on 06.06.2023 and investigation started, which is still going on.

4. It has been argued 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. It is further submitted that in the FIR itself it has no where mentioned that the present applicants took the victim of the case from her house and contrary to that it is mentioned in the FIR that she left her house with the main accused Suhail Ali @ Sahil. It is further submitted that in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim has not corroborated the prosecution version and she has stated that she has left her house on her own will. It is further submitted that earlier a compromise had also taken place between the parties in the police station itself wherein the parties gave consent for marriage of the victim with the main accused Suhail Ali @ Sahil. It is further submitted that the applicants have no criminal history to their credit. After completion of investigation charge-sheet has been submitted in this matter. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. Though, non bailable warrant have been issued against the accused-applicants but they have not been declared as proclaimed offenders and no process under sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued till date against the accused-applicants. It is lastly submitted that the applicants were granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 24.07.2023 vide Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 7829 of 2023 and have not misused the said liberty.

5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the accused persons are having no criminal history, except the present case and now no custodial interrogation is required from the accused/applicants. It is further submitted that the applicants are trying to solemnize the marriage of the victim with main accused Suhail Ali @ Sahil without any conversion of religion. It is further submitted that engagement of the victim had already taken place prior to the incident. It is further submitted that the minor victim has been kept under wrongful confinement by the present accused applicants and the family members of the main accused Suhail Ali @ Sahil.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.

7. From perusal of the record it appears that the applicants were granted anticipatory bail on 24.07.2023 vide Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 7829 of 2023 till submission of police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and no instance of misuse of the said liberty has been brought to the notice of the court. It also reveals from the perusal of the record that no process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicants till date and they have cooperated during the investigation.

8. Although the charge sheet has been submitted in this matter but 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, llikelihood 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.

9. 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 170CrPC 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 173CrPC. 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 Cr.P.C 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. In sofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170CrPC, 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."

10. Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till conclusion of trial in the matter.

11. The anticipatory bail application is allowed accordingly.

12. In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime, 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 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

ii. The applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

iii. The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

iv. The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicants in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 24.2.2025

Vikram