Mohd. Rais Khan @ Balle v. State of U.P

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 11865 of 2023 Applicant :- Mohd. Rais Khan @ Balle Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Mustaqeem Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the material available on record.

¶2This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by applicant-Mohd. Rais Khan @ Balle in connection with Case Crime No. 289 of 1998, under sections 420, 467, 468, 506 IPC, P.S. Thakurdwara, District Moradabad.

¶3As per prosecution story, the father of the informant is stated to have sold the land to the applicant through registered sale deed. It is alleged in the FIR that the said registered sale deed were illegal.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant is maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and has the apprehension of his arrest. The applicant has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel has next stated that he is the bonafide purchaser and is himself duped of his hard earned money, if any. ILearned counsel has stated that the applicant had challenged the said matter by filing a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., which is still pending. It is further submitted that in the aforesaid application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No.30889 of 2023. the parties of the case were given liberty to file a compromise before the court concerned and for a period of two months from the date of that order, a protection order was passed in favour of the present applicant by this Court vide order dated 01.08.2023. It is next submitted that compromise petition has been moved before the court concerned in compliance of the order of this Court which is still pending but not yet verified by the court concerned. It is further submitted that two months has been lapsed and aforesaid application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been finally disposed off. It is also submitted that accused applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit. It is next submitted that identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Sageer Ahmad, Mehmood Hasan & Mahmood have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 21.08.2023 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8995 of 2023, therefore, the accused applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail as the case of the accused applicant is similar to that of co-accused persons.

¶5Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶6Although the charge sheet has been submitted in this matter, but 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.

¶7Hence, 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 conclusion of trial in the matter.

¶8The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶9In the event of arrest of the applicant in the aforesaid case crime, 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 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) The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

(iii) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

(iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶10In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicant in accordance with law. Order Date :- 30.10.2023 Shivangi High Court of Judicature at Allahabad