High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:174218 Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9508 of 2023 Applicant :- Furqan Khan And And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar,Shahbaz Ahamad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants- 1. Furqan Khan, 2. Minhaz Khan and 3. Ibrar Khan seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 156 of 2023, under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Gahmar, District- Ghazipur. 3. It was alleged in the FIR that on 18.07.2023 the present accused applicants along with one other co-accused came to the field of the informant and applicant no.1 opened fire upon the driver of the informant with intention to kill, who sustained fire arm injury, the accused persons became offensive but people came over there and they fled away. FIR was lodged on the same day and investigation started, which is still going on. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. It is further submitted that no fire arm injury has been caused to the driver or any person alleged in the incident. It is further submitted that in the injury report of injured Banarsi Ram only simple injury has been found on his body and that too has not been caused by hard and blunt object. It is further submitted that there is a property dispute between the parties in respect of the property which belongs to the mother of the applicants and some revenue and consolidation proceedings are already pending between the parties and due to the animosity of that the present FIR has been lodged on the basis of false and fabricated facts. It is further submitted that the applicants have no grudge with the injured Banarsi Ram, who is said to be the driver of the informant and they have no occasion to open fire upon him. It is further submitted that the criminal history of the applicants has been explained and they are cooperating with the investigation of the case and, as such, they are entitled for anticipatory bail. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but however could not dispute this factual aspect that in the injury report of the injured Banarsi Ram, no fire arm injury has been found by the doctor. 6. In the present matter the applicants are cooperating with the investigation of the case and no custodial interrogation is required in the matter at this stage. 7. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held 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. 8. In Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 676, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation, then there is no compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused. 9. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, 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 filing of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court. 10. The application is allowed accordingly. 11. In the event of arrest of the applicants, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. (ii) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office. (iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned. 12. In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim protection granted to the applicants. Order Date :- 29.8.2023 Fhd Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad