Lallu Alias Alimullah v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12557 of 2023 Applicant :- Lallu Alias Alimullah Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mujiburrahman Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶2This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Lallu Alias Alimullah seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 162 of 2023, under Sections 368, 506 IPC, Police Station-Mohana, District-Siddharth Nagar.

¶3The victim of the case was missing and the informant came to know that co-accused Sarfuddin has enticed her away. FIR was lodged against four accused persons on 30.7.2023 and investigation is going on in respect of the present applicant.

¶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. It is further submitted that the victim in her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has herself stated that he was having intimate relation with co-accused Sarfuddin and had eloped with him, who made forcible physical relation with her and she had been living with Sarfuddin for about 22 days. The role of the present applicant was assigned only to cooperate with the main accused. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit and no wrong has been committed by him with the victim of the case. He had been cooperative with the investigation so far and is entitled for anticipatory bail. In case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail.

¶5Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is vehemently submitted that in her statement under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. it has been specifically stated by the victim of this case that she had gone to the house of the co-accused Sarfuddin after being threatened by the present applicant and she was cooperating with the main accused. Investigation is still going on against the applicant. The victim of this case is a minor girl and the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶6In 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.

¶7In 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.

¶8Considering 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. before the competent Court.

¶9The application is allowed accordingly.

¶10In 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.

¶11In 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 :- 11.12.2023 Fhd High Court of Judicature at Allahabad