Istakar Ali and 2 Others v. State of U.P

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12394 of 2023 Applicant :- Istakar Ali And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Siddharth Shanker Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶2This application has been moved on behalf of the applicants - Istakar Ali, Arik and Rashid seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.566 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 336 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Tronika City, District Ghaziabad.

¶3A free fight took place between the two rival groups of the village and stone pelting and firing also took place wherein the police intervened and F.I.R. was lodged on 22.9.2023 and investigation started, which is going on.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicants submits that that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. They have been falsely implicated in this matter. Allegations levelled against the applicant are false. Investigation is going on in the matter. It is further submitted that the prosecution story is totally improbable and not natural. It was not possible for the informant, who is a police officer, to identify the present applicants in a crowd of hundreds of people. Although it has been alleged in the F.I.R. that stone pelting and firing took place during the course of occurrence, but as a matter of fact no person from either side has sustained any injury in this case. In fact, it is a no injury case. Criminal history of the applicants has been sufficiently explained. It is further submitted that the applicants have been cooperative during investigation so far and as such they are entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶5Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, but however he could not dispute the factual aspect of the matter which has been raised by the counsel for the applicants.

¶6In the present case, no person has sustained any injury and no specific role of assault to any of the applicant has been assigned. Criminal history of the applicants has been satisfactorily explained. Investigation into the matter is still going on.

¶7In 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, 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.

¶8In 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.

¶9Considering 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 applicants till the filing of police report under section 173

(2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court.

¶10The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

¶11In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail till the filing of police report under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court 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 him/her 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.

¶11In case of default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of protection granted to the applicants. Order Date :- 8.11.2023 ss High Court of Judicature at Allahabad