Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Juned Kidwai And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. on 3 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34599 Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 935 of 2024 Applicant :- Mohd. Juned Kidwai And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Azad Khan,Aftab Ahmad,Santosh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
1. Learned A.G.A. informs that he has procured complete instructions in the matter including up-to-date case diary and charge sheet in this case has been submitted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. The instant application has been moved by the applicants- Mohd. Juned Kidwai and Mohd. Zuber (Real Name: Mohd Ariz Kidwai) in Case Crime No. 90 of 1988, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504 and 307 I.P.C., Police Station Safdarganj, District Barabanki, with the prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail, as they are apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants while pressing the anticipatory bail application submits that it is a case of false implication. After lodging of the FIR the charge sheet was not submitted against the applicants and it was on an application moved by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C., they were summoned to face trial, vide order dated 22.2.1990 and the said order was challenged by filing a Criminal Revision No. 89 of 1990 before this Court and vide order dated 26.03.1990 the further proceedings pending before the court below was stayed.
5. It is further submitted that the aforesaid criminal revision was dismissed on merits on 25.1.2000 and thereafter due to some misunderstanding the applicants could not appear before the trial court and till now only the process of summons have been issued against the applicants.
6. It is further submitted that co-accused persons of this case, namely, Rizwan @ Mohd. Rizwan, Furkan @ Mohd. Furkan and Achchan @ Abdul Rakib had approached this Court requesting to grant anticipatory bail and their anticipatory bail application was disposed of, vide orders dated 14.3.2024, 21.3.2024 and 21.3.2024 passed in CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. Nos. 541 of 2024, 412 of 2024 and 619 of 2024 permitting them to appear/ surrender before the trial court for the purpose of moving appropriate bail application for consequential direction of disposal of that bail application in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 as well as In Re: To issue certain Guidelines Regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in Criminal Trials v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, MANU/SC/0292/2021. However, when these accused persons approached the trial court for the purpose of obtaining regular bail their regular bail applications were disposed of after detaining them for 4-7 days in prison.
7. It is vehemently submitted that as only the process of summons have been issued and no coercive process of the nature of non-bailable warrants or 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the applicants yet the detention of the applicants in prison would not reap any fruits, that too only for the purpose of grant of bail to them. The applicants are ready to cooperate in the trial and they are not having any criminal antecedents and thus protection from arrest be granted to them.
8. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that it is a case where the applicants have remained absconded for 23 years without there being any justification and therefore the relief of anticipatory bail being a discretionary relief may not be provided to the applicants as also that identically placed co-accused persons have not been granted the same benefits.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the factual matrix of this case appears to be admitted to the parties. There cannot be any other view that after being summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on 22.2.1990 the applicants approached this Court by filing criminal revision no. 89 of 1990 which was finally disposed of on 25.1.2000 and in normal courts the applicants should have appeared before the trial court at once as the aforesaid criminal revision was dismissed on merits in presence of the learned counsel for the revisionists/ applicants. Various submissions have been raised by learned counsel for the applicants in order to take a sympathetic view persuading this Court to take sympathetic view with regard to applicants as they are shown to be suffering from various diseases.
10. It is also his submissions that as of now only the process of summons have been issued and there is no coercive process in operation and therefore the grant of bail to the applicants after 5-6 days of their detention may not be commensurate with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and others : (2021) 10 SCC 773 and Siddharth v. State of UP : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 615 as well as in view of Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0274/2017 as well as In Re: To issue certain Guidelines Regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in Criminal Trials v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, MANU/SC/0292/2021,
11. There cannot be any doubt that the regular bail application of an accused person must be disposed of at the earliest and only requirement for the Court in order to dispose of the regular bail application is the sufficiency of material available before it and if that material is available on the very first day there is no harm in disposing of the regular bail application on the same day. Thus, this principle has also been highlighted by the Honb'el Supreme Court in Hussain and Ors (supra).
12. Thus, having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, so far as the request for grant of anticipatory bail is concerned, I do not find any good ground to provide the same to the applicants on merits as well as on the principle of maintaining parity between the co-accused persons against whom identical allegations have been levelled. Thus, the request to grant anticipatory bail is hereby refused.
13. However, anticipatory bail application moved on behalf of the applicants is finally disposed of with a direction that if within 20 days from today i.e. 23.5.2024 an application for regular bail is moved by the applicants before the trial court, the trial court shall be under an obligation to dispose of the same in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble supreme Court Hussain and Ors. and In Re: To issue certain Guidelines (supra).
14. It is further provided that while dispose of the regular bail plea of the applicants the trial court shall pay due regard to the nature of process issued against the applicants and also as to whether the detention of the applicants only for the purpose of disposing of their regular bail application would fetch any fruitful result.
15. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Nathu Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others':(2021)6 SCC 64, in order to facilitate the surrender/ appearance of the applicants before the trial court, it is provided that for the next 20 days i.e. till 23.05.2024, applicants- Mohd. Juned Kidwai and Mohd. Zuber (Real Name: Mohd Ariz Kidwai) in case of their arrest under any process of the trial court, shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on their furnishing personal bonds of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/ Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions:-
(i). The applicant shall surrender before the trial court within 20 days from today i.e. on or before 23.05.2024 and on their surrender/appearance, the trial court shall dispose of their regular bail application strictly in accordance with the law aforesaid.
16. It is clarified that all the observations contained in this order are only for disposal of this anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial proceedings in any manner.
17. The protection granted by this Court is only for 20 days from today i.e. till 23.05.2024 and beyond that the applicants shall not be entitled for any protection of the instant order.
Order Date :- 3.5.2024 Muk