Allahabad Sept 3(ILNS): The Allahabad High Court on August 31, conditionally granted anticipatory bail to Asad, a close aide of former MP Atiq Ahmed, lodged in Ahmedabad jail, in a case at Kareli Police station.
A Single Bench comprised of Justice Rahul Chaturvedi passed this order while hearing a criminal Misc Anticipatory bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C filed by Mohd Asad that he has every reason to believe that he may be arrested on the accusation of having committed a non-bailable offense in connection with Case under Sections 147, 336, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Kareli, District-Prayagraj.
The Court observed that from the record, it is evident that the applicant has approached this Court straightway without getting his anticipatory bail rejected from the Court of Sessions.
Counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court to Clause-7 of Section 438 Cr.P.C. (U.P. Act No.4 of 2019), which read thus : “(7) If an application under this section has been made by any person to the High Court, no application by the same person shall be entertained by the Court of Session.”
After interpreting the aforesaid clause, it is clear that the Legislature in its own wisdom bestowed two avenues upon the accused with a rider that if the accused has chosen to come to the High Court straightaway, then he would not be relegated back to exhaust his remedy before the Court of Session first.
The Court said that, in this regard, Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ankit Bharti and others Vs. State of U.P. and another, in which the Bench has directed to spell out the extraordinary and special reasons for coming to the High Court. After perusal of those pleadings/reasons in this regard, the Court is satisfied that the reasons mentioned therein are quite convincing to entertain the anticipatory bail application before the Court itself.
It has been contended by the Counsel for the applicant that the applicant has got criminal antecedents of two cases, which has been duly explained in the affidavit accompanying the application.
An assurance was also advanced by Counsel for the applicant on behalf of the applicant that he would render all requisite co-operation and assistance in the process of law and with the investigating agency and shall not create any hindrance to reach to its logical conclusion and shall not flee away from the course of justice.
Counsel for the applicant has strenuously argued that the applicant has been made target just to besmirch his reputation and belittle him in the public estimate by the informant. Number of arguments were advanced by Counsel for the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the accusation made in the FIR against the applicants by the informant.
Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the instant FIR was registered by Kaushlendra Bahadur Singh, SSI on March 24, 2021 against the applicant and 4, 5 other persons with the allegation that someone has thrown the stones on unknown persons but that persons remain unscratched. The applicant undertakes that he would cooperate in the investigation and not flee away from the course of investigation.
Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the anticipatory. He submitted that the alleged apprehension on behalf of the applicant is imaginary and unfounded one.
A.G.A. has also submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made in the F.I.R., the applicant is not entitled for any relaxation from this Court.
The Court held that, after the close scrutiny of Section 438 Cr.P.C.(U.P. Act No.4 of 2019) and its relevant clauses, the Court is satisfied that the applicant has made out the case for interim order protecting the liberty of applicant in connection with aforesaid case crime pending investigation.
The Court ordered that,
Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may be adversely affect the investigation and subsequent stage of the case, the Court directs that in the event of arrest of the applicant in aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer till the submission of report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer, with the conditions that :
(1) The applicant shall make himself available for the interrogation by the police as and when required. The Investigating Officer of the case would give 48 hours prior notice or telephonically inform the concerned accused applicant to remain available to him for the purposes of interrogation and the accused-applicant is obliged to abide by such directions.
(2) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threats or comments to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the correct facts to the court or to the police officer.
(3) The Investigating Officer of the case would make all necessary endeavour to gear up the investigation in utmost transparent and professional way and would try to conclude the same within a maximum period of 90 days.
(4) During this period the accused-applicant would not leave the State of Uttar Pradesh without informing the Investigating Officer of the case and sharing his contact number.
(5) In the event the applicant is having his passport, he will have to surrender the same before the concerned SP/SSP of the District till the submission of report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. (13) In the event, the applicant breaches or attempt to breach any of the aforesaid conditions or wilfully violate above conditions or abstains himself from the investigation, it would be open for the Investigating Officer or the concerned authority to apply before the court of Session for cancellation of interim protection and the Court of Session has every liberty and freedom to revoke the anticipatory bail after recording the reasons for the same.
The Court has fixed the next hearing of the petition after two months./ILNS/AP/SNG