✦ High Court of India

Fareed v. State of U.P.), which is taken on record

Case Details

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:159020 Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1304 of 2024 Applicant :- Mohd Fareed Alam @ Fareed Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Pati Tiwari,Deepak Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Shukla Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

Legal Reasoning

1. Heard counsel for the applicant, Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, counsel for the informant and Sri V.P. Tripathi, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record. 2. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 29.03.2024 by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The order is quoted herein below;- "1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Anand Pati Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has produced before the Court an order dated 20.09.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 35085 of 2017 (Fareed Vs. State of U.P.), which is taken on record. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the first information report was lodged against the applicant and five other persons under Section 363 and 366 I.P.C. by Ram Kumar on 31.03.2014, which was investigated and a charge-sheet was submitted against Shoaib and Chhuttan under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C., which is dated 05.08.2014. It is submitted that the applicant was subsequently granted bail vide said order dated 20.09.2017 by another Bench of this Court. He was then exonerated in the present matter. It is then argued that the applicant has now been summoned vide order dated 10.02.2023 on an application moved under Section 319 Cr.P.C., after five prosecution witnesses have been examined in the trial. It is submitted that the applicant is having no criminal history as stated in paragraph no. 33 of the affidavit. 5. Matter requires consideration. 6. Issue notice to the first informant returnable within four weeks. 7. Learned counsel for the State and first informant may file their counter affidavits within the said period. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. 8. Let the matter be listed on 13.05.2024. 9. Till the next date of listing, in the event of arrest of the applicant- Mohd Fareed Alam @ Fareed, in Case Crime No. 145 of 2014, under Section 376 I.P.C., Police Station Ajitmal, District Auraiya, shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on his 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 applicant shall make himself available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned. (ii) 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. (iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the concerned court. 10. In case, the applicant does not co-operate in the proceedings of the trial, this order shall stand automatically recalled/vacated and the applicant shall be taken into custody, forthwith. 11. Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same." 3. Counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The applicant was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the trial court. The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that she had gone voluntarily with the applicant. However, during the course of trial the victim (P.W.-6) stated an entirely different version. Further, the applicant is appearing before the trial court on the dates fixed. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. In case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, till the conclusion of trial he will not misuse the said liberty. 5. Learned A.G.A. and counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the applicant as recorded in the order dated 29.03.2024, considering the nature of accusations, antecedents of the applicant and the fact that in the statement of the victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has stated that she had gone voluntarily with the applicant. However, during the course of trial the victim (P.W.-6) stated an entirely different version. The applicant is appearing before the trial court on the dates fixed. Further, no violation of conditions or misuse of liberty of interim bail has been pointed out by counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A., without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 8. In the event of arrest, the applicant Mohd Fareed Alam @ Fareed, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on 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 applicant shall make himself available on each date fixed in the matter by the court concerned; (ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court; (iii) the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the concerned court. 9. In default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

Decision

10. The application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 27.9.2024 Sachin Mishra

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments