Ansarul Khan v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 9450 of 2023 Applicant :- Ansarul Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar,Shahbaz Ahamad Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohammad Adnanul Haq,Zia Uddin Ahmad Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶2Present Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with the prayer to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant -Ansarul Khan in Case Crime No.156 of 2023, under Sections 307, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station - Gahmar, District - Ghazipur.

¶3It 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 co-accused, Furqan Khan 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.

¶4It has been 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. Investigation is going on in the matter. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶5It 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 applicant 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 identically placed co-accused persons, namely, Furqan Khan, Minhaz Khan and Ibrar Khan have already been granted anticipatory bail till submission of police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.9508 of 2023 vide order dated

29.08.2023, 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.

¶6Learned 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.

¶7In the present matter the applicant is cooperating with the investigation of the case and no custodial interrogation is required in the matter at this stage.

¶8In 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.

¶9In 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.

¶10Considering 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. in the matter.

¶11The application is allowed.

¶12In 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 Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

(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.

¶13In 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 applicant. Order Date :- 31.10.2023 Shivangi High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad