Allahabad High Court
Umar Khalid vs State Of U.P. And Another on 28 November, 2022
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7627 of 2022 Applicant :- Umar Khalid Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui,Kamal Krishna Roy,Rajvendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Supplementary affidavit, filed by the learned counsel for the applicant, 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. 175 of 2022, under Sections 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 153-A, 153-B, 295-A, 307, 332, 353, 435, 427, 504, 505 (2), 506, 120-B IPC, Section 4/5 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908, Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, Section 83 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Property Act, 1984, P.S. Kareli, District Prayagraj, with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.
According to the prosecution version, on 10.06.2022 at 2.30 PM after Friday prayers, a mob came from Kabristan side and some persons came from Tiraha Kareili, Prayagraj and they raised objectionable slogans, pelted stones and bricks on the police and also thrown bomb and made firing and burnt some vehicles. The said mob tried to disturb communal harmony. In the incident some police officials have sustained injuries. The case was registered against applicant and 13 named co-accused persons and more than two hundreds unknown persons.
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 was submitted that regarding same incident, three cases were registered including present one and in one of the present case, applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail. In the alleged incident no police official has sustained any grievous injury and thus, no case under Section 307 IPC is made out against the applicant. Only general and omnibus allegations have been levelled against the accused persons. No specific role has been assigned to the applicant. It has further been pointed out that during investigation, eye-witness Sub Inspector Abhinav has stated in his statement that applicant was not present in the said the said mob. A number of co-accused persons were arrested at the spot but they have also not named the applicant. Several CCTV footage have been collected but applicant has not been shown in those CCTV footage. It is also pointed out that in fact at the time of alleged incident, the applicant was in Azamgarh and he was attending a student conference. The applicant is a law student and he has been falsely implicated merely because he is organizer of Madarsa. Criminal history shown, against the applicant, has duly been explained. 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 and argued that applicant is named in the FIR .
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 applicants 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 Umar Khalid involved in the aforesaid case, they shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 70,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station 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.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
Order Date :- 28.11.2022 A. Tripathi