High Court · 2025

1. Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, instant anticipatory bail application may be finally disposed off.

2. Heard Sri Piyush Dubey, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Mahendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Satish Chandra Sinha, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Ajeet Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.

3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 400 of 2023, under Sections 323, 380, 411, 457, 504 IPC, Police Station Nagina, District Bijnor with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail during trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that this is second anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the applicants and their first anticipatory bail application was dismissed by this Bench vide order dated 01.02.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 14596 of 2023 during investigation but after rejection of first anticipatory bail application by this Bench, applicants preferred Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.2364 of 2024 before the Division Bench of this Court and after considering the entire facts of the case in detail, the Division Bench of this Court on 14.03.2024 stayed the arrest of the applicants and on 08.05.2024 the writ petition filed by the applicants was disposed off by the Division Bench of this Court with the direction that applicants shall not be arrested till cognizance is taken on the police report and pursuant to the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court during investigation applicants were not arrested but now charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken, therefore, applicants are having apprehension that if they will appear before the court concerned then they will be sent to jail.

5. He further submits, as during investigation pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in writ petition filed by the applicants they were not arrested, therefore, after submission of the charge-sheet there is no occasion of their custodial interrogation.

6. He further submits, applicants are not having any criminal history, therefore, under these compelling circumstances, the instant second anticipatory bail application filed by the applicants should be allowed.

7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted, this is second anticipatory bail application filed by the applicants and their first anticipatory bail application was dismissed by this Court on merit but they could not dispute the fact that first anticipatory bail application of the applicants was dismissed during investigation and after dismissal of their anticipatory bail application they filed writ petition before the Division Bench of this Court and Division Bench of this Court was pleased to stay the arrest of the applicants till the cognizance is taken on the police report.

8. They further could not dispute the fact that pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court applicants have not been arrested during investigation.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

10. However, this is second anticipatory bail filed on behalf of the applicants but it appears, first anticipatory bail application of the applicants has been dismissed by this Court during investigation vide order dated 01.02.2024 and it reflects that after rejection of their first anticipatory bail application they preferred writ petition before the Division Bench of this Court and Division Bench of this Court was pleased to stay their arrest till cognizance is taken on police report, therefore, it appears, pursuant to the order passed by this Court during investigation applicants have not been arrested.

11. Further, there is no allegation that during investigation applicants misused the liberty granted to them by the Division Bench of this Court.

12. Further, the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are having apprehension that if they will appear before the court concerned then they will be sent to jail cannot be completely brushed aside.

13. Further, after submission of the charge-sheet it appears, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicants. Further, applicants are not having any criminal history.

14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial.

15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed.

16. In the event of arrest of the applicants- Taseer Ahmed and Tahir Ahmed 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:- i. that 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. that the applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; iii. that the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; iv. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; v. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

17. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicants.

18. 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 :- 5.2.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, instant anticipatory bail application may be finally disposed off.

2. Heard Sri Piyush Dubey, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Mahendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Satish Chandra Sinha, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Ajeet Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.

3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in F.I.R./Case Crime No. 400 of 2023, under Sections 323, 380, 411, 457, 504 IPC, Police Station Nagina, District Bijnor with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail during trial.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that this is second anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the applicants and their first anticipatory bail application was dismissed by this Bench vide order dated 01.02.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 14596 of 2023 during investigation but after rejection of first anticipatory bail application by this Bench, applicants preferred Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.2364 of 2024 before the Division Bench of this Court and after considering the entire facts of the case in detail, the Division Bench of this Court on 14.03.2024 stayed the arrest of the applicants and on 08.05.2024 the writ petition filed by the applicants was disposed off by the Division Bench of this Court with the direction that applicants shall not be arrested till cognizance is taken on the police report and pursuant to the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court during investigation applicants were not arrested but now charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken, therefore, applicants are having apprehension that if they will appear before the court concerned then they will be sent to jail.

5. He further submits, as during investigation pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in writ petition filed by the applicants they were not arrested, therefore, after submission of the charge-sheet there is no occasion of their custodial interrogation.

6. He further submits, applicants are not having any criminal history, therefore, under these compelling circumstances, the instant second anticipatory bail application filed by the applicants should be allowed.

7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted, this is second anticipatory bail application filed by the applicants and their first anticipatory bail application was dismissed by this Court on merit but they could not dispute the fact that first anticipatory bail application of the applicants was dismissed during investigation and after dismissal of their anticipatory bail application they filed writ petition before the Division Bench of this Court and Division Bench of this Court was pleased to stay the arrest of the applicants till the cognizance is taken on the police report.

8. They further could not dispute the fact that pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court applicants have not been arrested during investigation.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

10. However, this is second anticipatory bail filed on behalf of the applicants but it appears, first anticipatory bail application of the applicants has been dismissed by this Court during investigation vide order dated 01.02.2024 and it reflects that after rejection of their first anticipatory bail application they preferred writ petition before the Division Bench of this Court and Division Bench of this Court was pleased to stay their arrest till cognizance is taken on police report, therefore, it appears, pursuant to the order passed by this Court during investigation applicants have not been arrested.

11. Further, there is no allegation that during investigation applicants misused the liberty granted to them by the Division Bench of this Court.

12. Further, the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are having apprehension that if they will appear before the court concerned then they will be sent to jail cannot be completely brushed aside.

13. Further, after submission of the charge-sheet it appears, there is no need of custodial interrogation of the applicants. Further, applicants are not having any criminal history.

14. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial.

15. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant anticipatory bail application is allowed.

16. In the event of arrest of the applicants- Taseer Ahmed and Tahir Ahmed 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:- i. that 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. that the applicants shall not leave India without previous permission of the court; iii. that the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; iv. that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; v. that the applicants shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

17. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicants.

18. 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 :- 5.2.2025 AK Pandey ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad