High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 84 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3226 of 2023 Applicant :- Rashid Siddiqui Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd Raghib Ali,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ishwar Chandra Tyagi,Seraj Ahmad Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Rashid Siddiqui seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 2273-A of 2006, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Muzaffarnagar.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Shri Sagheer Shmad, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Mohd. Raghib, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ishwar Chandra Tyagi, learned counsel for the informant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. An F.I.R. was also lodged by one Maroof Rana, who is from applicant's side, under Section 302 I.P.C. on 28.10.2006 at about 6.30 P.M. regarding the incident alleged to have taken place on the same day between 3.30 to 3.40 P.M. vide Case Crime No. 2273 of 2006 at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Muzaffar Nagar against Kadir Rana, sitting M.P. and three others, namely, Noor Salim, Mohammad Gori and Pappu. Opposite party no.2, Shahid Rana, making a cross case, has also lodged the F.I.R. in Case Crime No.2273-A of 2006 against the applicant on 4.11.2006 at about 8.15 A.M. regarding the incident alleged to have taken place on 28.10.2006 in between 3.30 to 3.45 P.M. under the sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The investigation culminated into filing of final report in Case Crime No.2273-A of 2006. Opposite party no.2 filed protest petition on submission of final report which was allowed and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar summoned the applicant in exercise of power conferred under Section 190 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 15.1.2007. Aggrieved with the said order, applicant preferred a Criminal Misc. Application before this Court in which the impugned order was quashed and by the order dated 5.4.2007, the matter was remitted to the concerned Magistrate to make a fresh look into it and then pass orders in accordance with law. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 5.4.2007 in the said application, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 28.6.2007 issued directions for further investigation in exercise of power conferred under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. As usual after investigation charge sheet was filed against the applicant on 4.6.2006 under Section 307 I.P.C. on which cognizance of the offence was also taken on 20.7.2011. It is pointed out by the counsel for the applicant that during the pendency of the trial when PW 1 turned hostile, an application for transfer of the trial was moved from the side of the applicant and vide order dated 26.9.2007, this Court transferred the trial from District Muzaffar Nagar to District Meerut which is still pending since then. Meanwhile, an application for withdrawal of the case under Section 321 CrPC was moved by the Prosecution Officer, Muzaffarnagar on 19.4.2014 and subsequently it was clarified that the said relief provided by the State Government was available to the present applicant and co-accused Zafar Iqbal; that after rejection of the aforesaid application on 29.10.2015, Criminal Revision No. 19 of 2016 was preferred which was allowed and matter was remitted for hearing to the C.J.M., Muzaffarnagar. In the meantime, the entire record of the case was sent from the Court of C.J.M. Muzaffarnagar to C.J.M., Meerut, who instead of deciding the said application under Section 321 CrPC, issued non- bailable warrant against the applicant and later on passed another order for issuance of process under Sections 82/83 CrPC and subsequently co-accused Zafar Iqbal was arrested on the basis of aforesaid process and when an application to recall the punitive action was moved by the co-accused Zafar Iqbal, an order for disposal of pending application under Section 321 CrPC was passed by the C.J.M., Meerut. The present applicant, in the meantime, filed an anticipatory bail application feeling his apprehension of arrest in pursuance of the orders dated 5.8.2022 and 14.9.2022 passed by the C.J.M. Meerut by which punitive actions were taken against the applicant. However, the aforesaid anticipatory bail application was dismissed as not pressed. Co- accused Zafar Iqbal was granted bail by this Court and subsequently the application under Section 321 CrPC was rejected by the C.J.M., Meerut. Against that order, criminal revision No. 101 of 2023 was preferred and the revisional court summoned the entire record pertaining to the present case from the Court of C.J.M., Meerut. However, as submitted by the learned Senior Counsel, police made attempt to arrest the applicant pursuant to the non-bailable warrant issued against him and then second anticipatory bail application was filed before this Court which is pending. It is also submitted that the present applicant is an old aged person and is heart patient and his treatment regarding the same is going on. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicant is proclaimed offender and processes under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC have also been issued against him. Sufficient evidence has been collected against the applicant during investigation. Applicant has actively participated in the commission of the crime and he, as such, is not entitled for anticipatory bail. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that during pendency of the application under Section 321 CrPC, punitive processes were ordered to be issued against the applicant and when the said application was decided by the C.J.M. concerned and revision against the same was allowed, the matter of issuance of punitive process came to an end. So far as the factual scenario of the case is concerned, a perusal of the F.I.R. reflects that it is alleged against the present applicant that he alongwith other accused persons tried to disturb the voting at some polling booths when the voting was going on and in commission of the aforesaid offence, he alongwith co-accused and candidate Muzaffar Rana, Muzammil and Faizal opened fire upon Furqan, nephew of the informant and he sustained gunshot injury but it reveals from the perusal of the record that the gunshot injury has not been inflicted on any vital part of the body of the injured Furqan. It also reveals that no specific role of firing has been assigned to the present applicant. It appears that no custodial interrogation from the present applicant seems to be required. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding 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. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant 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 applicant till the end of trial. The application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on 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 before the Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial. (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 and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned. In case of default of any of the conditions, the same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 25.4.2023 safi Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad