Mir Imran v. State of U.P

Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12186 of 2023 Applicant :- Mir Imran Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Sharma,Atul Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.

¶2This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.44 of 2020, under Sections 506, 120-B, 406 & 420 IPC, Police Station Bhojpur, District Moradabad.

¶3Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant in fact no such incident has taken place as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. As per allegation, the informant is owner of the firm, namely, M/s Nasir Handicraft Manufacturing and he was received the order of copper, almunium and brass for supplying. Siraj Ahmad and Aashkar Ahmad have assured that the items will supply on the given address thereafter they have visited at Noida, where they have a meeting with co-accused persons, namely, Wasim, Rohit, Sumit Khurana and applicant. They have been said to be Manager, Director, Supervisor and partner of the rapid trade firm. The main dispute of Rs.22,70,000/- which has been taken by the co-accused, namely, Siraj Ahmad and Aashkar Ahmad. It is further submitted that no concern with the applicant of such dispute as alleged in the FIR, applicant was simply sitting in the office, therefore, no such offence as alleged in the FIR is made out against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant also drawn attention that the co-accused, namely, Ashkar Ahamad has already been granted bail on 15.11.2022 by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.19380 of 2022. It is further submitted that the disputed money in question has already been paid to the informant. Delayed FIR has been lodged without any explanation. The allegations are civil in nature but the informant is giving colour in criminal nature. Prima facie no alleged offence is made out against the applicant. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 26 of the affidavit. He further submits that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.

¶4Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶5Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC

¶98The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶6In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant-Mir Imran, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.

(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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

(vii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.

¶7In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶8With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of. Order Date :- 17.11.2023 I.A.Siddiqui High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad