Imran Saleem and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 13324 of 2023 Applicant :- Imran Saleem And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Arshad,Anjani Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Heard Sri Mohd. Arshad, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri R.M. Yadav, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶3The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No.0625 of 2021 registered under Sections 498A, 323, 377, 376, 506, 313 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act at Police Station-Debai, District Bulandshahar with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶4This is the second anticipatory bail application. The first one was allowed by this Court till the submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. vide order dated 02.06.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.1440 of 2022. Subsequent to it, the final report (charge sheet) has been submitted.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that the applicants are maliciously being prosecuted in the present case due to ulterior motive and have the apprehension of their arrest. The applicants have nothing to do with the said offence as alleged by the prosecution. The applicants have not misused the said opportunity granted earlier.

¶6In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Aman Preet Singh vs. C.B.I. through Director AIR 2021 SC 4154, wherein the Court has clearly held that if a person, who is an accused in a non-bailable/cognizable offence, was not taken into custody during the period of investigation, in such a case, it is appropriate that he may be released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail.

¶7Learned counsel for the applicants has stated that there are general allegations against all the accused persons. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against them. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicants have also been touched upon at length. There are no criminal antecedents of the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants undertakes that they have co-operated in the investigation and are 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. has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicants.

¶9On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants, the applicants are 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 applicants 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 applicants is allowed. Let the accused-applicants-Imran Saleem, Saleem, Qaisar Saleem, Farhat, Nahid, Nazia and Shazia be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

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

(ii). that 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

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

(iv). that the applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

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

(vi). 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 :- 16.12.2023 Ravi Kant (Krishan Pahal, J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad