Allahabad High Court
Jamil Ahmad And 7 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 February, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 85 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1576 of 2023 Applicant :- Jamil Ahmad And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Awadhesh Tiwari,Manoj Yadav,Saurabh Tripathi,Shantanu Srivastava Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
1. Heard Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Awadhesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite side, learned AGA for the State and perused the papers on record.
2. The present application has been moved on behalf of the applicants-Jamil Ahmad and 7 others seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime no. 360 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 307, 342, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kiratpur, District Bijnor.
3. As per prosecution case, the present applicants who are named in the FIR, illegally confined the first informant Ziyaul Haq, who was alone in his house. It is alleged that the applicants snatched the mobile and all of them beat him with Lathi, danda and belt etc. He sustained numerous injures and became unconscious. One of the co-accused Mehtab gave him a blow with knife asking him to divorce his second wife Ayashi. The first informant sustained a knife injury too and out of fear he divorced his second wife. It alleged therein that the applicant never wanted to do so. His family members were called and after intervention of local persons, he was rescued and lodged this FIR by moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
4. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that in this case, the FIR has been lodged on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Admittedly after investigation, a final report has been filed by the Investigating Officer finding no case against the applicants; the FIR has been lodged in reaction to the FIR lodged by them against the first informant; applicants are father and other family members of wife of the first informant and that this case has its genesis in domestic disputes between them and first informant's side.
5. After filing final report a protest application has been filed by the informant and the concerned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate after hearing him passed an order summoning the present applicants under Sections 147, 148, 307, 342, 323, 504, 506 IPC on wholly deficient evidence; the medical report is not a genuine paper; in fact an FIR from their side under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 308 had been lodged earlier (Case Crime No. 236 of 2020) and the charge sheet has been submitted against the first informant; it is argued that this case has been falsely filed against them to prepare to save themselves.
6. This anticipatory bail is opposed by the other side highlighting the fact that in this case, the first informant sustained as much as 19 injuries on his person and as per the medical report, there was a knife injury too which corroborated the FIR version; a number of witnesses, including the wife of the first informant have supported the prosecution version in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; the applicants have been summoned on the basis of sufficient evidence and the revision filed against the summoning order has been dismissed.
7. I considered all the submissions, facts, circumstances and material placed before me, It may be kept in mind that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised in suitable cases only. The power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. cannot be utilized in a routine manner and definitely not as a substitute for regular bail. This discretionary power calls for existence of facts of the kind where the court is satisfied that its interference is necessary to further the cause of justice and to prevent misuse of process of law.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find it a fit case to grant benefit of anticipatory bail.
9. Hence the anticipatory bail application is rejected.
10. It is made clear that observations made herein shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion at any stage of the case based on material before him.
Order Date :- 23.2.2023 Ashish Pd.