High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 82 Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134951 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 482 BNSS No. - 6418 of 2025 Applicant :- Haji Laddan Khan And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui,Saiyad Iqbal Ahmed Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J. 1. Sri Roopak Chauvey, learned AGA, for the State, apprised the Court that he has received the instructions, therefore, the instant anticipatory bail application may be finally disposed off. 2. Heard Sri Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Roopak Chauvey, learned AGA, for the State. 3. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants with the prayer to release them on anticipatory
Facts
bail in FIR/Case Crime No.335 of 2024, under Sections 353(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 221, 132, 125, 324(5), 323(B), 326(F) and 61(2Ka) BNS and Section 3/5 Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station Kotwali Sambhal, District Sambhal during pendency of the trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that FIR of the present case was lodged against co-accused Zia Ur Rehman Barq and Suhail Iqbal and 700-800 unknown persons and as per the FIR named co-accused persons along with their hundreds of associates created obstruction in survey of mosque and they damaged the public property including vehicles of the Police and some unknown persons caused fire arm injuries to CO on his leg too. 5. He further submits that applicants were not named in the FIR and during investigation on the basis of general and omnibus allegation they have been made accused in the present matter. 6. He further submits that as all the alleged offences were punishable upto seven years, therefore, without arrest of the applicants charge sheet has been filed against them on 12.6.2025. He next submits that after submission of charge sheet cognizance was taken and summons were issued but summons could never served upon the applicants and in spite of that on 1.8.2025 warrants were issued against them and 11.8.2025 is the next date fixed. 7. He further submits that as during investigation applicants have not been arrested and there is no allegation that they did not cooperate with the investigation, therefore, in view of the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Mahdoom Bava Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 2023 SCC OnLine SC 299, applicants should be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 8. He further submits that however as per observation made by the
Legal Reasoning
this Court in appropriate cases in the interest of justice can enlarge him on anticipatory bail. 9. He further submits that as only on 1.8.2025 warrants have been issued against the applicants and next date is 11.08.2025, therefore, it cannot be said that applicants are either absconders or they are trying to evade the process. He next submits, applicants are having apprehension that if they will appear before the court concerned then they will be sent to jail. 10. He next argued, as charge sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of applicants. 11. He further submits that applicant no.2 is not having any previous criminal history to his credit and however, applicant no.1 is having criminal history of one another case but that case relates to Archeological Survey of India Act and in that case he has already been released on bail. 12. He further submits that therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, applicants should be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 13. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not dispute that during investigation applicants were not arrested and without their arrest charge sheet has been filed and there is no allegation that they did not cooperate with the investigation. However, he further submits, after submission of charge sheet when applicants did not appear then on 01.8.2025 warrants have been issued against them and, therefore, considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay and others (supra) applicants should not be released on anticipatory bail. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 15. However, as per allegations applicants and hundreds of other obstructed survey of a mosque and also caused damage to the public property and in the incident one police personnel also sustained injuries but applicants were not named in the FIR and during investigation they have been made accused on the basis of general and omnibus allegations. 16. Further, during investigation applicants were not arrested and without their arrest charge sheet has been filed and there is no allegation that applicants did not cooperate with the investigation. 17. Further, however, from the record it reflects that on 01.8.2025 warrants have been issued against the applicants after submission of charge sheet but it reflects that before 1.8.2025 summons were being issued against them and from the record it could not be reflected that summons were duly served upon them. 18. Further, after issuing warrants against the applicants on 1.8.2025 court concerned fixed next date as 11.8.2025. Considering these facts it cannot be said that applicants were either absconders or they were evading either process of law or their arrest. 19. Further, considering the fact that warrants have been issued on 1.8.2025, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are having apprehension that if they will appear before the concerned then they will be sent to jail, cannot be brushed aside. 20. Further, however, in the case of Srikant Upadhyay and others (supra) the Apex Court observed that ordinarily when warrants have been issued against an accused then he should not be released on anticipatory bail but even in the case of Srikant Upadhyay and others (supra) the Apex Court observed that in appropriate cases in the interest of justice this Court can enlarge an accused on anticipatory bail even if warrants have been issued against him. 21. Further, after submission of charge sheet custodial interrogation of the applicants do not appear to be necessary. 22. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of the trial. 23. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail anticipatory application is allowed. 24. In the event of arrest of the applicants-Haji Laddan Khan and Rizwan involved in the aforesaid case crime number, shall be released on bail till the conclusion of the trial case 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 them 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 temper with the evidence during the trial; (iv) that the applicants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness; (v) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; 25. 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. 26. It is made clear that the 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 :- 11.8.2025 SKM Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Apex Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay and others Vs. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2024 Supreme Court 1600, once warrants have been issued then ordinarily an accused should not be released on anticipatory bail but even as per the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay and others(supra) there is no complete bar for this Court to enlarge an accused on anticipatory bail even after issuance of warrants and