Allahabad High Court
Mirza Zeshan Beg vs State Of U.P. on 18 March, 2020
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2065 of 2020 Applicant :- Mirza Zeshan Beg Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Tirpathi,Manoj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tirpathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This anticipatory bail application (u/s 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 1132 of 2019 under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 332, 353, 336, 427, 436, 307, 188, 120-B, 109, 153-A, 295-A I.P.C., Section 7 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and Section 3 of Prevention from Damages to Public Property Act, Police Station Kotwali City District Bijnor during pendency of investigation.
Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that he has apprehension of imminent arrest. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that he has placed bail application directly before this Court and has stated that on the date of filing of this Bail Application, there was strike going on in District, Bijnor because of which he could not approach Sessions Judge and approached this Court directly.
Learned A.G.A. was asked to verify the aforesaid fact and in response to that, he has also given details from 15.01.2020 to 3.03.2020. It shows that on various dates, the district Court was facing advocates' strike as condolence resolution was passed on account of some demise, because of which, it could be possible that accused may not have filed this application before the Sessions Judge and has approached this Court directly, hence this Application is being entertained.
As per F.I.R. which has been lodged by S.I., Harish Kumar when he along with his team reached the place of occurrence to maintain law and order on 20.12.2019, at about 2:00 p.m., when proceedings of namaz were done, the crowd came out raising slogans against C.A.A. They were counselled by police but it became violent and this protest was being headed by the applicant along with other co-accused named in F.I.R. who were known to the police from before. Video recording was also being done and cameras were also snatched by crowd and lot of property were damaged and arson was also indulged in. Crowd was armed with illegal weapons in large numbers. Even firing was made upon police party and were pelted stones, patrol bottles etc. in which somes constables had got injured from the side of prosecution. As regards these injuries, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that one of the constable, Shorya has suffered six injuries, Shiv Kumar has received seven injuries of different kinds, Sachin has received seven injuries of various kinds, Abhishek Tiwari has received five injuries of various kinds and Manoj Kumar has received five injuries and one, Arpit Kumar has suffered complaint of pain only.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant was not present on the place of occurrence nor was he seen in C.C.T.V. footage. He has not annexed any documents showing any animosity against informant who has lodged report against him. He has no criminal history. If released on bail he would not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the investigation.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail and has drawn attention of the Court towards several documents in which it has been noticed by this Court that name of the accused applicant has been incorporated in the present case. Nine persons were issued notice for recovery of damages which was done during protest. It is further argued that looking to the fact that large numbers of constables were seriously injured in this occurrence which was headed by accused applicant along with other, it cannot be denied that the present applicant was not involved in this occurrence and injuries were received by police personnel in large numbers.
Taking into consideration the gravity of accusation and there being possibility of his fleeing from justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court does not find good ground for enlarging the applicant, Mirza Zeshan Beg on anticipatory bail in this case.
The anticipatory bail application of the applicant Mirza Zeshan Beg, is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 18.3.2020 A. Mandhani