# Adil v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 284
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-12-08
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 8285 of 2020
- **Bench:** Siddharth
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/adil-v-state-of-u-p-46171
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307 & 504 -
anticipatory bail - If the facts of the given
case make the applicant entitled for grant
of anticipatory bail, even after submission
of
charge
sheet
against
him
and
cognizance of the same by the Court, the
second
anticipatory
bail
would
be
maintainable before the High Court even
though the applicant was earlier granted
anticipatory bail till the submission of
charge sheet by the High Court. (Para -
11)

FIR lodged against the applicant with regard to
incident of the same date - allegation - coaccused fired upon the informant on the
instigation of applicant - did not hit the
informant - Neither named in the FIR - nor in
the statement of the witnesses recorded by the
Investigating Officer any weapon has been
assigned to him - no criminal history .(Para -
12,13)

HELD:- Power to grant anticipatory bail vested
in High Court does not comes to an end after
submission of charge sheet.(para - 11)

Anticipatory bail application allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with crime but it is important for the courts
to recognise the potential threat to the life
and liberty of victims/witnesses, if such
accused is released on bail."

34. This would also not be irrelevant
to mention that while the police officers
were making inquest and doctors were
doing autopsy on the body of the deceased
in post mortem house, despite the fact, the
blood stained salwar of the victim was sent
to
Forensic
Science
Laboratory
for
chemical examination, no private part of
the deceased was examined so as to verify
the allegations of gang rape with her.
Neither the inquest report nor the post
mortem report have made any such report.

35. All these facts, if they are true,
sufficient to gather inference of high
handedness
of
the
accused-applicants
affecting the things in their favour.
Therefore, their release on bail at this stage
cannot be considered.

36. The application of the bail moved
on behalf of accused-applicants on the
basis of above discussions is rejected.

37. The trial court is required to
examine
as
soon
as
possible,
the
prosecution witnesses and proceed further
with the disposal of the case, therefore, a
direction is hereby issued to the Court
concerned to proceed expeditiously within
one year, from the date, the certified copy
of the order is placed before it.

38. It is further clarified that the
learned trial court while deciding the case
on merit, shall not swayed upon with the
observation made by this Court in the order
because
occasion
to
make
such
observations arisen while dealing with the
argument made at the stage of bail by
learned counsels for the bail-applicants.

39. The officers entrusted with the
prosecution i.e. A.D.G. (Police) / Incharge
of D.G. (Prosecution), State of U.P.,
Lucknow, Joint Director (Prosecution),
Amethi and D.G.C. (Criminal), Amethi are
directed to ensure the production of
prosecution witness before the trial court
expeditiously and get them examined so
that the trial court may be able to decide the
case expeditiously within a prescribed
period of one year. They are further
directed to ensure the protection of
witnesses of prosecution.

40. The Senior Registrar of the Court
to ensure the service and communication of
order to (i) A.D.G. (Police) / Incharge of
D.G.
(Prosecution),
State
of
U.P.,
Lucknow, (ii) Joint Director (Prosecution),
Amethi and (iii) D.G.C. (Criminal), Amethi
through email in addition to the usual
course of communication and service of
orders as prescribed under rules.
----------
(2021)07ILR A284
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 8285
of 2020

Adil ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Sadaful Islam Jafri, Sri Iqubal Hussain,
Sri Nazrul Islam Jafri (Senior Adv.)
7 All. Amit Vs. State of U.P.
285
Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 307 & 504 -
anticipatory bail - If the facts of the given
case make the applicant entitled for grant
of anticipatory bail, even after submission
of
charge
sheet
against
him
and
cognizance of the same by the Court, the
second
anticipatory
bail
would
be
maintainable before the High Court even
though the applicant was earlier granted
anticipatory bail till the submission of
charge sheet by the High Court. (Para -
11)

FIR lodged against the applicant with regard to
incident of the same date - allegation - coaccused fired upon the informant on the
instigation of applicant - did not hit the
informant - Neither named in the FIR - nor in
the statement of the witnesses recorded by the
Investigating Officer any weapon has been
assigned to him - no criminal history .(Para -
12,13)

HELD:- Power to grant anticipatory bail vested
in High Court does not comes to an end after
submission of charge sheet.(para - 11)

Anticipatory bail application allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Anirudh Prasad @ Sadhu Yadav Vs The St. of
Bihar, Patna High court

2. Bharat Chaudhary & anr. Vs St. of Bihar &
anr. (2005) 8 SCC 77

3. Imratlal Vishwakarma & ors. Vs St. of M.P.,
1996(0) MPLJ 662

4. Ravindra Saxena Vs St. of Raj., (2010) 1 SCC
684

5. Jagmohan Bahl & anr. Vs St. (NCT of Delhi) &
anr. (2014) 16 SCC 501

6. Salauddin Abdul Samad Shaikh Vs St. of
Maharashtra, (1996) VI SCC 667

7. Vinod Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & anr., 2019 (12)
ADJ 495

8. Sushila Aggarwal Vs St. (NCT of Delhi), 2020
SCC Online SC 98

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth, J.

1. Heard Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Sri S.I. Jafri, learned
counsels for the applicant and learned
A.G.A for the State.

2. The instant Anticipatory Bail
Application has been filed with a prayer to
grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant,
namely, Adil, Case Crime No. 89 of 2019,
under Sections- 307 and 504 IPC, Police
Station- Civil Lines, District- Aligarh.

3. Prior notice of this bail application
was served in the office of Government
Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule
18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and
as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this
Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail
Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of
2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus
State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail
application is being heard. Grant of further
time to the learned A.G.A as per Section
438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not
required.

4. This anticipatory bail application
has been filed praying for enlargement of
the applicant on anticipatory bail again
when earlier he was granted anticipatory
bail by this court vide Criminal Misc.
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 29238 of
2019 till the submission of police report
286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Learned
Senior Counsel for the applicant has
submitted that the Investigating Officer has
submitted
charge
sheet
against
the
applicant and the co-accused under Section
307/504 IPC before CJM, Aligarh and after
cognizance of the same the applicant
alongwith
co-accused
have
been
summoned by the court vide order dated
02.11.2019. Hence the applicant may be
enlarged on anticipatory bail till the
conclusion of trial.

5. Learned A.G.A has opposed the
prayer made on behalf of the applicant and
has submitted that once anticipatory bail
was granted to the applicant for a limited
period and he availed the same, there is no
occasion
for
granting
him
further
anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial.
Since the charge sheet has been submitted
and cognizance has been taken thereof by
the C.J.M., hence the applicant may apply
for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C or
he may challenge the charge sheet and
summoning order passed by the C.J.M.,
concerned.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the
applicant has relied upon the judgment of
the Patna High Court in the case of
Anirudh Prasad @ Sadhu Yadav vs. The
State of Bihar dated 22, May, 2006
wherein the Patna High Court had earlier
granted anticipatory bail to the applicant till
the submission of police report. Later when
the charge sheet was filed against him he
moved second anticipatory bail application
for granting him anticipatory bail till the
conclusion of trial. The prayer was turned
down by Patna High Court but the Apex
Court did not agreed to the same and
directed the Patna High Court to consider
the bail application of the applicant afresh.
The Patna High Court found that the power
to grant anticipatory bail does not comes to
an end by mere submission of charge sheet
against the applicant. After considering the
merits of the case anticipatory bail was
granted to the applicant by the Patna High
Court till the conclusion of trial.

7. Next reliance has been placed on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Bharat Chaudhary &
Another vs. State of Bihar & Another
(2005) 8 SCC 77 dated 08.10.2003 wherein
the Apex Court held that there is no
restriction on the power of the courts
empowered to grant anticipatory bail under
Section 438 Cr.P.C to prevent undue
harassment of accused persons by pre-trial
arrest and detention. It can be granted even
when cognizance on charge sheet has been
taken.

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the
applicant has further relied upon the
judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court
in the case of Imratlal Vishwakarma and
Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh dated
09.12.1996, 1996(0) MPLJ 662 and the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of Ravindra Saxena vs. State of Rajasthan
(2010) 1 SCC 684 dated 15.12.2009 where
the second anticipatory bail application of
the applicant was dismissed by the High
Court but the Apex Court disapproved the
same and granted liberty to the applicant to
make third anticipatory bail application
before the High Court. The anticipatory
bail application of the applicant in that case
was rejected only because challan was
presented against him before the court.

9. Final reliance has been placed on
the judgment of the Apex Court of
Jagmohan Bahl and Another vs. State
(NCT of Delhi) and Another (2014) 16
SCC 501 which does not addresses the
7 All. Amit Vs. State of U.P.
287
controversy involved in the present bail
application.

10. Learned A.G.A has relied upon
the case of Salauddin Abdul Samad
Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (1996) VI
SCC 667 wherein the Apex Court held that
when the anticipatory bail is granted by the
court of Session or the High Court, it is at
the stage of incomplete investigation. The
nature of offence against the offender is not
before the court, therefore, anticipatory bail
order should be of limited duration only
and after the aforesaid duration expires the
matter should be left for the regular court to
deal with it and the court granting
anticipatory bail should not substitute itself
for the original court. He has also relied
upon the judgment of this court in Vinod
Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Another 2019
(12) ADJ 495 and has submitted that this
court has mandated that interim bail would
continue only till submission of charge
sheet before the court.

11. After considering the rival
contentions this court finds that the Apex
Court in the case of Bharat Chaudhary
and Another vs. State of U.P. and Another
(Supra) has considered the judgment of
Salauddin Abdul Samad Shaikh (supra)
and has held that it does not imposes any
restriction or absolute bar on the court
granting anticipatory bail even in cases
where either cognizance has been taken or
a charge sheet has been filed. The Apex
Court has found that it only lays down a
guideline that while considering prima
facie case against an accused, the factum of
cognizance having been taken and filing of
charge sheet would be of some assistance
for coming to the conclusion whether the
accused is entitled for anticipatory bail or
not.
Now
this
judgment
stands
overruled by the judgment of Apex Court
in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State
(NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
Regarding the judgment of this court in
Vinod Kumar (Supra) the observations
were that till such time this issue is decided
by the larger Bench the anticipatory bails
shall continue till summoning of accused
on the basis of police report submitted
under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The issue
stands decided 5 Judge Bench of the Apex
Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs.
State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online
SC 98. The Apex Court has settled the
controversy
finally
by
holding
the
anticipatory bail need not be of limited
duration invariably. In appropriate case it
can continue upto conclusion of trial.
Therefore after considering the authorities
cited on behalf of the learned Senior
Counsel for the applicant this court is of the
view that power to grant anticipatory bail
vested in High Court does not comes to an
end after submission of charge sheet. If the
facts of the given case make the applicant
entitled for grant of anticipatory bail, even
after submission of charge sheet against
him and cognizance of the same by the
Court, the second anticipatory bail would
be maintainable before the High Court even
though the applicant was earlier granted
anticipatory bail till the submission of
charge sheet by the High Court.

12. Now coming to the factual matrix
of the case this court finds that FIR dated
28.02.2019
was
lodged
against
the
applicant with regard to incident of the
same date alleging that co-accused, Nabel,
fired upon the informant on the instigation
of applicant, but it did not hit the
informant. The applicant filed Anticipatory
Bail Application No. 29238 of 2019 which
288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was allowed by this court vide order dated
23.07.2019 granting anticipatory bail to the
applicant till the submission of police
report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Now
charge sheet has been submitted and
cognizance has been taken by C.J.M.,
Aligarh
thereon
vide
order
dated
02.11.2019. The applicant has also been
summoned by C.J.M.

13. Applicant belongs to a reputed
family and is pursuing B.A., L.L.B. Course
in Aligarh Muslim University. His father is
an Assistant Professor in the same
University. Neither in the FIR nor in the
statement of the witnesses recorded by the
Investigating Officer any weapon has been
assigned to him. He has been implicated
only to spoil his life career. The applicant
has no criminal history nor he has ever
been implicated in any other case. The
Apex Court in the case of Sushila
Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020
SCC Online SC 98 has held that the bail
can be granted to an accused till the
conclusion of trial and therefore applicants'
prayer can be considered for grant of
anticipatory bail till the conclusion of trial.

14. Hence without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case and
considering the nature of accusations and
of applicant antecedents the applicant is
directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail
as per the Constitution Bench judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Sushila
Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020
SCC Online SC 98 and order dated
22.05.2020 passed by this Court in
Criminal
Misc.
Anticipatory
Bail
Application No. 2609 of 2020. The future
contingencies regarding anticipatory bail
being granted to applicant shall also be
taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment
of the Apex Court.

15. Let the applicant involved in the
aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory
bail on furnishing a personal bond with two
sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial court concerned
with the following conditions:-

1. The applicant shall not leave
India during the currency of trial without
prior permission from the concerned trial
Court.

2. The applicant shall surrender
his passport, if any, to the concerned trial
Court forthwith. His passport will remain in
custody of the concerned trial Court

3. That 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 from disclosing such
facts to the Court or to any police officer;

4. The applicant shall file an
undertaking to the effect that he shall not
seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for
evidence and the witnesses are present in
court. In case of default of this condition, it
shall be open for the trial court to treat it as
abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in
accordance with law to ensure presence of
the applicant.

5. In case, the applicant misuses
the liberty of bail, the trial Court concerned
may take appropriate action in accordance
with law and judgment of Apex Court in
the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State
(NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

6. The applicant shall remain
present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case,
(ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in
the opinion of the trial court default of this
condition is deliberate or without sufficient
cause, then it shall be open for the trial
court to treat such default as abuse of
7 All. Amit Vs. State of U.P.
289
liberty of his bail and proceed against him
in accordance with law.

7. The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad.

8.
The
concerned
Court
/Authority/Official
shall
verify
the
authenticity of such computerized copy of
the order from the official website of High
Court
Allahabad
and
shall
make
a
declaration of such verification in writing.
----------
(2021)07ILR A289
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.06.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 8720 of 2021

Amit ...Applicant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Praveen Kumar Tripathi, Sri Shri Krishna
Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Section 392 - offence of robbery , Section
411 - Dishonestly receiving stolen property -
rights of the accused are important, but
equally important is the societal interest for
bringing the offender to book and for the
system to send right message to all in the
society - Undue sympathy for offender
would be more harm to justice system to
undermine the public confidence in the
efficacy of law.(Para - 9)
Informant lodged F.I.R. with regard to an
incident - against two unknown persons for the
offence of robbery - allegation - snatching of
gold chain .(Para - 3)

HELD:- The applicant is a repeated offender
and has a long criminal history of 17 cases .
Applicant has misused the liberty of bail granted
to him on earlier occasions by repeatedly
indulging himself in such offences. Considering
long criminal history of the applicant and his
conduct, this Court is of the view that there is
no good ground to release the applicant on bail
at this stage. (Para - 7,10)

Bail application rejected. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant, Mr. Rabindra Kumar Singh,
learned Additional Government Advocate
assisted by Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh,
learned Brief holder appearing on behalf of
the
State
of
U.P.
through
video
conferencing and perused the record of the
case.

2. The instant bail application has
been filed on behalf of the applicant with a
prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime
No. 466 of 2020, under Section 392, 411
I.P.C.,
Police
Station-Panki,
DistrictKanpur Nagar during the pendency of trial.

3. As per the prosecution case, facts
of the case in brief are that on 04.10.2020
informant Smt. Pushpa Devi lodged F.I.R.
at 16:40 O'clock as Case Crime No. 466 of
2020 at P.S. Panki, District-Kanpur City
with regard to an incident that took place
on 04.10.2020 at 12:30 p.m. against two
unknown persons for the offence of
robbery under 392 I.P.C. alleging inter alia
that on 04.10.2020 she along with her
daughter Sunita Jain and daughter-in-law