High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:153065 Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 8197 of 2023 Applicant :- Kamil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dheeraj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Raj Pandey
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Criminal Misc. Amendment Application No. 2 of 2023 has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to amend the prayer clause of the application. The application is allowed. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to amend the prayer clause of the application during course of the day. On oral prayer, learned counsel for the applicant is also permitted to delete Section 504 IPC from the prayer clause of the application. 2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Kamil seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 4 of 2022, under Sections 307 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Budhana, District Muzaffarnagar. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 4. It is submitted 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. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. It is further submitted that in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 4115 of 2023 the applicant was granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 28.4.2023 passed by this Court and same was not misused by him. No process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC has been issued against the applicant and the applicant has not been declared absconder. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that after collecting ample evidence against the applicant, charge sheet has been submitted. It is also submitted that injury has been caused to the injured upon his head and stomach, which are vital parts of the body and in view of the seriousness of the matter, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 7. As per prosecution case, initially F.I.R. was lodged by the informant Rashid against three named accused persons, namely, Ikhlak, Sarwar and Haroon alleging that at the time of occurrence all the three accused persons came to the Dhaba where the informant was sitting with his brother Asif and nephew (bhanja) Zaid and some other persons and using abusive language with intention to kill, all the three accused persons opened fire upon Asif and when the informant and Zaid tried to rescue him, fire was also opened upon them, which missed. Asif sustained firearm injuries and he was admitted in the hospital, however, during course of investigation, the story narrated in the F.I.R. was found to be false and it came into light that the informant himself was the main conspirator and the named accused persons were falsely implicated in the matter. 8. It reveals from the perusal of the record that after investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the applicant. Earlier the applicant was granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 28.4.2023 vide Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 4115 of 2023 till submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC before the Competent Court and now after filing of charge sheet no custodial interrogation is required in the matter. It is also noted by the Court that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and no actual firing was made by him upon the injured person. Applicant has no criminal history. 9. 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, likelihood 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. 10. 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 on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till the end of trial. 11. The application is allowed accordingly. 12. 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. 13. 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 :- 31.7.2023 safi Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad