Azeem @ Mohd. Azeem v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12248 of 2023 Applicant :- Azeem @ Mohd. Azeem Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sushil Kumar Tewari Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Sri R.M. Yadav, learned A.G.A. has informed that the notice to the informant has been served on 30.10.2023.

¶3Heard Sri Manoj Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sushil Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for the informant and Sri R.M. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶4The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Criminal Case No.1320 of 2023, Charge Sheet No.105 of 2023 dated 19.06.2023 in connection with Case Crime No.76 of 2023, under Sections 354, 354Gha, 323, 504 IPC and Section 7/8 Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act at Police Station-Kundarki, District Moradabad with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.

¶5As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have outraged the modesty of the informant/victim on 03.04.2023 when she had gone to see to her brother who had gone go the mosque to offer prayer, whereby the co-accused person Asim is also stated to have reached there and assaulted her alongwith the applicant.

¶6Learned counsel has further stated that the present FIR is a counterblast to the FIR No.007 of 2023 instituted by the aunt of the applicant, who happens to be the wife of co-accused person Asim, against the father of the informant/victim herein. The present FIR has been instituted about more than three months after the incident.

¶7Learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that the injury report indicates simple injuries. The medical examination report of the victim has been prepared on 05.04.2023 at about 2:25 p.m., which is after a delay of two days. The injury report indicates that the injuries are one day old, as such the time of offence does not match to the injury report. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicant. The applicant has apprehension of his arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he has co-operated in the investigation and is ready to do so in trial also failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

¶8Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application.

¶9On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicant coupled with the fact that the FIR is delayed, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1". The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶10In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant-Azeem @ Mohd. Azeem be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

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

(ii). that 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;

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

(iv). that in case charge-sheet is submitted the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial;

(v). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

(vi). that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

(vii). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.

¶11It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial. Order Date :- 20.11.2023 Ravi Kant (Krishan Pahal, J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad