Farman v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2451 of 2023 Applicant :- Farman Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pavan Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

¶1List has been revised.

¶2Heard learned counsel for applicant as well as Sri Shakeel Ahmad, learned A.G.A. for State and also perused the material available on record.

¶3The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed for protection in regard to FIR/Case Crime No. 280 of 2012, under Sections 452, 307, 323, 324 I.P.C., P.S.- Kiratpur, District-Bijnor.

¶4As per the allegations in the FIR instituted by Smt. Saieda W/o Imran, at police station on 8.8.2012, the applicant alongwith two other co-accused persons had fired at her husband on 4.1.2012 at

12.30 pm and causing grievous injuries to three persons. There was an altercation between the parties on 3.1.2001 also.

¶5Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel has next stated that the FIR is delayed by about four days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. It is further stated that the police, after thorough investigation, has filed a closure report in the said matter but on the protest petition being filed by the informant, the applicant was summoned by the Magistrate vide order dated 28.9.2015. The applicant had challenged the said summoning order by filing a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by this Court. It is further stated that the applicant had subsequently filed the present anticipatory bail application and has not misused it and he is not the previous convict. It is further stated that the injuries have been found to be simple in nature. It is stated that only one person i.e. Shahzad is stated to have sustained gunshot injuries. The other co-accused persons have not sustained any firearm injury. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the supplementary report of the injured Shahzad, which indicates that there is no firearm injuries sustained by the injured person, as no traumatic bony lesion was observed. It is next stated that in case, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant is allowed, he will not misuse the liberty and shall cooperate with trial.

¶6Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that no traumatic bony lesion was seen but it is mentioned therein that few pinpoint metallic density radio opaque shadows were seen. Learned A.G.A. has stated that it indicates firearm injuries sustained by the injured person.

¶7Considering the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties that the matter is of the year 2012 and the cognizance was taken against the applicant and the summons was issued to him on 28.9.2015 itself, and considering the fact that the applicant has failed in the petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and there are gunshot injuries sustained by Shahzad, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant as the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant pertain to regular bail application and cannot be agitated at this stage u/s 438 Cr.P.C.

¶8In view of the above, the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant is found devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

¶9It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of anticipatory bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. (Justice Krishan Pahal) Order Date :- 16.11.2023 Shalini High Court of Judicature at Allahabad