Allahabad High Court
Aftab Alam vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 August, 2022
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6636 of 2022 Applicant :- Aftab Alam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Chaubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 0026 of 2021, under Sections 147, 352, 188, 332, 342, 353, 504, 427, 307 IPC, Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and Section 3/5 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, P.S. Jaitpura, District Varanasi, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. It has further been submitted that applicant has no criminal antecedents and that no coercive process has been issued against the applicant so far. The first information report of this case was lodged against applicant and 39 named accused persons as well as 500-600 unknown persons, making general allegations that they were making complaint that electronic voting machine (EVM), by which voting has taken place, are being tempered with and that the said mob has pelted stones and bricks at the police and also caused damage to police vehicle. The first information report was lodged under Sections 147, 352, 188, 332, 342, 353, 504, 427 and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932. Learned counsel submitted that after about 20 days, statement of one constable Dhirendra Yadav was recorded, who has inter alia stated that the said mob has caught him and tried to strangulate him and on the basis of said statement Section 307 IPC was added. The said witness constable Dhirendra Yadav himself has stated that he has not been medically examined. Learned counsel submitted that only general allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons including the applicant and in fact in the alleged incident no one has sustained any injury and no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. The applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and trial and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency or Court. It has been stated that in case, the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate during investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application for anticipatory bail.
It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.
In the instant case, considering 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 on merit of the case, a case for anticipatory bail is made out.
The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
In the event of arrest of the applicant- Aftab Alam in the aforesaid case crime, 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 the Station House Officer of the police station concerned/Court below concerned with the following conditions :-
(i) the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police 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/them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) the applicant would co-operate during investigation and trial and would not misuse the liberty of bail.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
Order Date :- 22.8.2022 A. Tripathi