Allahabad High Court
Zafar Abbas vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 July, 2022
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 75 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4361 of 2022 Applicant :- Zafar Abbas Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- S.M. Iqbal Hasan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant today, is taken on record.
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.0051/2019, case no.310 of 2019, under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/120-B I.P.C., Police Station Pipri, District Kaushambi with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
It has been argued by 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. According to prosecution version, the applicant Zafar Abbas by impersonating himself as Zafar Ali executed a sale-deed dated 18.10.2011 of the property of Zafar Ali. Learned counsel argued that Zafar Ali was the real uncle of applicant and the alleged sale-deed was executed by Zafar Ali himself. The family members of deceased Zafar Ali have not made any complaint regarding the sale-deed in question. Complainant is a third party and he has absolutely no connection with the alleged property or sale-deed. It is submitted that complainant is a practising advocate and earlier he has lodged a case against applicant and when police have submitted a final report in that case, he has got lodged first information report of this case by moving an application under Section 156 (3) CrPC. Learned counsel has referred the first information report and other documents and submitted that no case is made out against applicant. Learned counsel has also relied upon the case of Shubh Karan Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [2021 (4) ADJ 499]. It was also submitted that 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 and argued that applicant has executed the sale-deed by impersonating himself as Zafar Ali and that the version of complainant is supported by several other witnesses.
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- Zafar Abbas 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 :- 6.7.2022 Neeraj