High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:149680 Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8384 of 2024 Applicant :- Sirajuv @ Sirajudeen Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Gaurav Kakkar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and perused the material available on record. 2. The present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant - Sirajuv @ Sirajudeen in Case Crime No.111 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 452, 427, 336, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station - Chandpur, District - Bijnor. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per allegation in the First Information Report, it is alleged that six nominated accused persons, including applicant are alleged to have assaulted the injured as a result of same six persons have sustained injuries. It is submitted that general role has been assigned in respect of assault. No specific role has been assigned. It is submitted that injured Sahjad was medically examined and his injuries were found to be simple injuries, which are caused by hard and blunt object. It is further submitted that in respect of injured Faisal is concerned, as per supplementary report, injuries are simple in nature. Insofar as injured Farheen is concerned, injuries have been caused by hard and blunt object. There is also fracture of frontal bone right side. In respect of injured Suleman is concerned, injuries have been caused by hard and blunt object. There is fracture of right parietal bone and the injury no.1 is held to be grievous in nature. So far as injured Faidh is concerned, injuries have been found to be simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt object and there is no X-ray report. 3-A. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was dispute between the parties with regard to drain, as a result of same, both sides have sustained injuries and the FIR was lodged by father of applicant, which is at page 96 of the paper book. FIR has been lodged in respect of same incident, as from the applicant's side also six persons have suffered injuries and in fact, one person has sustained fracture of frontal bone and fracture of proximal phalanx. It is submitted that the dispute has arisen at the spur of moment on account of dispute of drain. It is submitted that even otherwise, case in the present case would not travel beyond Section 325 IPC as no dangerous weapon was used. The assault was made by both sides and there could not have been any intention to commit culpable homicide in free fight. 3-B. Learned counsel for the applicant has also referred to photograph at page 120 and 121 of the paper book where in CCTV camera, it has been found that other side were the aggressor and were carrying dangerous weapon. It is submitted that although against applicant is proceeded under Section 307 IPC, however, in respect of similar injury, no offence under Section 307 IPC has been made against opposite sides. It is further submitted by learned counsel for applicant that applicant has criminal history, which has been explained in paragraph 31 of the affidavit and if the applicant is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and cooperate with the investigation. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest by the police any time. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the anticipatory bail application and submits that both sides have taken law in their hands and there is dispute with regard to drain. 5. It is not shown by learned AGA that the offence in question will have impact on society at large. It is not shown that act causes harm to the society. The accusations arise out of dispute between individuals. It is not shown by learned AGA that the nature and gravity of allegations are such that the same would disentitle the applicant for relief of anticipatory bail. Learned AGA has not raised concern that any prejudice would be caused to free, fair and full investigation in the event the applicant is granted anticipatory bail. No material, facts, circumstances or concern been shown by learned AGA for the State that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses or accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or that accused will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence. 6. Learned AGA for the State has pointed out the criminal antecedents of the applicant. No material or circumstance has been brought to the notice of this Court with regard to tampering of evidence or intimidating of witness in previous criminal cases. 7. In Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446, the Apex Court in para 30 has observed:- "We may hasten to add that when we state that the accused is a history- sheeter we may not be understood to have said that a history-sheeter is never entitled to bail. But, it is a significant factor to be taken note of regard being had to the nature of crime in respect of which he has been booked." 8. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2020 (11) SCC 648, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that pendency of several criminal cases against an accused may itself cannot be a basis for refusal of bail. 9. In so far as criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, it is not the case of the State that applicant might tamper with or otherwise adversely influence the investigation, or that he might intimidate witnesses before or during the trial. The State has also not placed any material that applicant in past attempted to evade the process of law. If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent. 10. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State. 11. It is to be seen that in the present case, as per statement of doctor, injuries sustained by injured are grievous in nature. There is fracture in frontal bone. Doctor who has examined the two injured has stated that injuries sustained by injured are grievous in nature, but have not stated that injuries were dangerous to life. Injuries were bone deep, however, it has not been demonstrated that there was any internal bleeding, which would resulted in culpable homicide. The dispute is between both sides and both sides have assaulted each other. Since there is fracture, which at best resulted in proceedings under Section 325 IPC, which is bailable offence.
Decision
12. In view of the above, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail in respect of offence described in para 2 of the present order. In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- 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 for interrogation by a police office as and when required. (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/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court concerned. (iv) In the event, the applicant changes residential address, the applicant shall inform the court concerned/Investigating Officer about new residential address in writing. (v) The applicant shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required. (vi) The applicant shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police. (vii) The applicant shall maintain law and order. (viii) The applicant shall at the time of execution of the bond, furnish his address and mobile number to Investigating Officer, and the court concerned. (ix) The applicant shall regularly remain present during the trial, and cooperate with the Court to complete the trial for the above offences. (x) Non presence of the applicant or his counsel before the court concerned shall be construed as violation of the present order and the court concerned would be at liberty to take coercive measures in accordance with law. 13. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. 14. With the directions made above, the anticipatory bail application stands allowed. Order Date :- 13.9.2024/D. Tamang