Heard Sri v. M. Zaidi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Afzal Ahmad Khan Durrani, learn
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:121429 Court No. - 70 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4539 of 2024 Applicant :- Arshad Ansari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Afzal Ahmad Khan Durrani,Rohit Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Heard Sri V. M. Zaidi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Afzal Ahmad Khan Durrani, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ajeet Kumar Madhesiya, learned Brief Holder for the State- respondent and Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant. 2. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed seeking release of the applicant in Case No.669 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.0582 of 2023, under Sections 323, 308, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Chandpur, District Bijnor, during pendency of the trial in the court below.
Legal Reasoning
3. FIR of the present case was lodged on 18.08.2023 against applicant and three others and according to the FIR, applicant and other accused made assault upon the informant and applicant caused injury on the head of the informant through some hard and blunt object from back side.
Legal Reasoning
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that entire allegation levelled against applicant is totally false and only due to previous enmity, he has been made accused in the present matter. 5. He further submits that however there is specific allegation that applicant made assault through rod on the head of the informant from the back but from the medical report of the injured, it reflects that he did not sustain any back injury on his head. 6. He further submits that during investigation, applicant moved an application to the higher authorities to constitute a Medical Board to re-examine the victim and in spite of the order passed by the Chief Medical Officer, injured i.e. informant of the case till date is not ready for his medical re-exmination and this fact clearly suggets that entire allegation levelled against the applicant is false. 7. He further submits that the order of the Chief Medical Officer concerned dated 20.09.2023 has been annexed at page 45 of the paper book of the instant anticipatory bail application. 8. He further submits that all the alleged offences are punishable with maximum punishment of seven years and without arrest of the applicant, after service of notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. charge-sheet has been submitted against him. 9. He placed reliance upon the judgements of the Apex Court passed in the cases of Md. Asfak Alam vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2023) 8 SCC 632 and Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. Through Director, (2022) 13 SCC 764 and submits that as during investigation applicant was not arrested, therefore, he should be released on anticipatory bail. 10. He further submits that applicant applied for anticipatory bail before the court concerned after submission of the charge-sheet but his anticipatory bail application was dismissed by the court concerned and therefore, applicant is having apprehension that if he will appear before the court concerned then he will be sent to jail. 11. He further submits that however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of six other cases but his criminal history has been explained in para 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant anticipatory bail application and out of six cases, four cases related to election campaign and in one case final report has been submitted, which has already been accepted by the court concerned. 12. He further submits that therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, applicant should be released on anticipatory bail. 13. Per contra, learned Brief Holder as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submit that there is specific allegation against the applicant that he caused head injury to the injured and however as per allegation applicant made assault from the back side but there is no allegation that he made assault on the back side of the head and therefore, it cannot be said that entire allegations levelled against the applicant are false. 14. They further submit that applicant is an influential person and during investigation, he was in abroad and on telephone, his statement was recorded and thereafter notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. was given to him and he actually never participated in the investigation. 15. They further submit that applicant is also having criminal history of six other cases but both the counsel could not dispute the fact that all the alleged offences are punishable with maximum punishment of seven years and on the application moved by the applicant, a Medical Board was constituted to re-examine the victim i.e. informant of the case but till date, he could not be medically re-examined. 16. They further could not dispute the fact that criminal history of the applicant has been explained in para 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant anticipatory bail application. 17. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 18. However, as per allegation, applicant made assault upon the informant on his head through iron rod from back side but injury of the injured shows that he did not sustain any injury on the back of his head. 19. Record further suggests that when applicant objected about the genuineness of the injury report of the victim i.e. informant of the case then Chief Medical Officer concerned directed to constitute a Medical Board to re-examine the victim but it reflects that till date victim could not be re-examined by the Medical Board. 20. Further, however, it reflects that during investigation applicant was abroad but fact remains same that as all the alleged offences are punishable with maximum punishment of seven years, therefore, without arrest of the applicant, after service of notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. charge-sheet has been submitted against him and I.O. did not make any attempt to arrest the applicant during investigation, therefore, in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the cases of Md. Asfak Alam (surpa) and Aman Preet Singh (supra) on which, reliance was placed by learned counsel for the applicant, applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 21. As far as criminal history of the applicant is concerned. However, it reflects that apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of six other cases but his criminal history has been explained in para 10 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant anticipatory bail application and from its perusal, it appears that out of six cases, four cases related to election campaign and in remaining two cases, however final report was submitted and in one case, final report has already been accepted however, in another case, after rejecting the final report, court concerned summons the applicant therefore, in my considered view, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above merely on the basis of such criminal antecedents of the applicant, he should not be denied to release on anticipatory bail. 22. Further, apprehension of custody/arrest raised by applicant cannot be ruled out. 23. Further, custodial interrogation of the applicant after submission of charge-sheet does not appear to be necessary in the present matter. 24. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial. 25. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed. 26. In the event of arrest of the applicant, Arshad Ansari involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Presiding Officer/Court Concerned, with the conditions that:- i. 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; ii. that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; iii. that the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; iv. that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; v. that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; 27. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant. 28. It is made clear that observations made in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 29.7.2024 Zafar