# Furkan Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 325
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-11
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 14066 of 2023
- **Bench:** Sameer Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/furkan-ahmad-v-state-of-u-p-anr-51147
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 438- Duration and
Scope - Applicant sought anticipatory bail in Case
Crime No. 187 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 323,
504, 506 IPC, 3/4 D.P. Act, and 3/4 Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, alleging false
accusations of dowry demands and triple talaq -
Held, the protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not
ordinarily time-bound and continues until the trial's
conclusion
unless
limited
by
specific
court
conditions, as per Sushila Aggarwal Vs St. (NCT of
Delhi) - The applicant's prior anticipatory bail
granted on 16.08.2022 was not restricted to the
submission of the police report under Section 173(2)
Cr.P.C., and thus remains effective until the trial
ends. (Paras 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19)

B. Judicial Review - Continuation of
Anticipatory
Bail
-
Applicant's
earlier
anticipatory bail application was rejected postcharge sheet, prompting a fresh application -
Held, the order dated 16.08.2022 granting
anticipatory bail did not specify a time limit, and
no special circumstances necessitated restricting
its tenure - The Constitution Bench in Sushila
Aggarwal clarified that anticipatory bail generally
extends till the trial's conclusion unless peculiar
features of the case require otherwise, making a
fresh bail application unnecessary. (Paras 6, 9, 12,
14, 16, 17, 18, 19)

C.
Criminal
Law
-
Allegations
and
Cooperation - Applicant denied allegations of
dowry demands and torture, claiming the
complainant's daughter left the matrimonial home
voluntarily due to a matrimonial dispute - Held,
the applicant's cooperation during investigation,
lack of prior criminal history, and prior grant of
anticipatory bail without misuse supported the
continuation of bail - No new order was required,
as the existing bail order remained valid, consistent
with Sushila Aggarwal. (Paras 4, 5, 7, 12, 18, 19)

D.
Procedural
Clarification
-
Bail
Documentation - The court noted that the bail
papers submitted to the police form part of the
case diary and are to be submitted to the trial
court with the police report under Section 173(2)
Cr.P.C. - Held, this procedural requirement does
not imply a time-bound bail unless explicitly St.d in
the order, reinforcing that the applicant's bail
continues without need for fresh adjudication, as
per the principles in Sushila Aggarwal. (Paras 12,
14, 15, 18)

E. Anticipatory Bail - No Fresh Order
Required - Applicant expressed apprehension of
arrest if he appeared before the trial court - Held,
since the anticipatory bail granted on 16.08.2022
was not time-limited and no special circumstances
warranted its termination, the applicant remains
protected until the trial's conclusion - The
application was disposed of without passing a
fresh order, affirming the existing bail's validity.
(Paras 8, 13, 18, 19, 20)

Anticipatory Bail Application Disposed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Furkan Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
325
aside. The award passed by the Facilitation
Council dated 2.7.2009, signed on 7.9.2011
and final award passed on 3.2.2012 is hereby
restored and affirmed.

49. Accordingly, the instant appeal filed
under Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 is allowed.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 325
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 14066 of
2023
(Under Section 438 Cr.P.C.)

Furkan Ahmad ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Kumar Beenu Singh, Sri Prashant Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Anwar Hussain

A.
Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,1973 - Section 438- Duration and
Scope - Applicant sought anticipatory bail in Case
Crime No. 187 of 2022 under Sections 498A, 323,
504, 506 IPC, 3/4 D.P. Act, and 3/4 Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, alleging false
accusations of dowry demands and triple talaq -
Held, the protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is not
ordinarily time-bound and continues until the trial's
conclusion
unless
limited
by
specific
court
conditions, as per Sushila Aggarwal Vs St. (NCT of
Delhi) - The applicant's prior anticipatory bail
granted on 16.08.2022 was not restricted to the
submission of the police report under Section 173(2)
Cr.P.C., and thus remains effective until the trial
ends. (Paras 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19)

B. Judicial Review - Continuation of
Anticipatory
Bail
-
Applicant's
earlier
anticipatory bail application was rejected postcharge sheet, prompting a fresh application -
Held, the order dated 16.08.2022 granting
anticipatory bail did not specify a time limit, and
no special circumstances necessitated restricting
its tenure - The Constitution Bench in Sushila
Aggarwal clarified that anticipatory bail generally
extends till the trial's conclusion unless peculiar
features of the case require otherwise, making a
fresh bail application unnecessary. (Paras 6, 9, 12,
14, 16, 17, 18, 19)

C.
Criminal
Law
-
Allegations
and
Cooperation - Applicant denied allegations of
dowry demands and torture, claiming the
complainant's daughter left the matrimonial home
voluntarily due to a matrimonial dispute - Held,
the applicant's cooperation during investigation,
lack of prior criminal history, and prior grant of
anticipatory bail without misuse supported the
continuation of bail - No new order was required,
as the existing bail order remained valid, consistent
with Sushila Aggarwal. (Paras 4, 5, 7, 12, 18, 19)

D.
Procedural
Clarification
-
Bail
Documentation - The court noted that the bail
papers submitted to the police form part of the
case diary and are to be submitted to the trial
court with the police report under Section 173(2)
Cr.P.C. - Held, this procedural requirement does
not imply a time-bound bail unless explicitly St.d in
the order, reinforcing that the applicant's bail
continues without need for fresh adjudication, as
per the principles in Sushila Aggarwal. (Paras 12,
14, 15, 18)

E. Anticipatory Bail - No Fresh Order
Required - Applicant expressed apprehension of
arrest if he appeared before the trial court - Held,
since the anticipatory bail granted on 16.08.2022
was not time-limited and no special circumstances
warranted its termination, the applicant remains
protected until the trial's conclusion - The
application was disposed of without passing a
fresh order, affirming the existing bail's validity.
(Paras 8, 13, 18, 19, 20)

Anticipatory Bail Application Disposed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Sushila Aggarwal Vs State (NCT of Delhi),
(2020) 5 SCC 1
326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sameer Jain, J.)

1.
 Heard
Sri
Prashant
Singh,
Advocate holding brief of Sri Kumar
Beenu Singh, learned counsel for the
applicant and Sri Imran Khan, learned
A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

2. The present anticipatory bail
application has been filed on behalf of the
applicant in Case Crime No. 187 of 2022,
under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC
and 3/4 D.P. Act & 3/4 of Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act,
Police Station Akrabad, District Aligarh,
with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory
bail, till the conclusion of trial.

3. FIR of the present case was lodged
against the applicant and his family
members by his father in law and according
to the FIR, applicant and his family
members tortured the daughter of the
informant since marriage for demand of
dowry and on the instigation of his family
members applicant gave triple talak to his
daughter and thereafter his daughter was
turned out from her matrimonial home by
the accused persons including applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that entire allegation made
against the applicant is totally false and
applicant is husband of the daughter of the
informant and he never either demanded
any dowry nor ever tortured the daughter of
the informant.

5. He further submitted that actually
daughter of the informant herself left her
matrimonial house as she did not want to
perform her matrimonial duties and it
appears that some matrimonial dispute
arose between applicant and his wife and
only due to this matrimonial dispute on the
basis of false allegation, FIR of the present
case was lodged.

6. He further submitted that during
investigation this Court on 16.8.2022 has
enlarged the applicant on anticipatory
bail but from the order dated 16.8.2022
which has been annexed as annexure-2 to
the affidavit it appears that anticipatory
bail was granted to the applicant in the
present matter only till submission of the
police report under section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
and therefore, after submission of the
charge
sheet
applicant
applied
for
anticipatory
bail
before
the
court
concerned
but his
anticipatory
bail
application has been dismissed.

7. He further submitted that as
during investigation, after considering
entire facts of the case this Court
enlarged the applicant on anticipatory
bail and applicant did not misuse the
liberty of earlier granted to him and he
fully co-operated with the investigation
and he is not having any previous
criminal history, therefore, he may be
enlarged
on
anticipatory
bail,
till
conclusion of the trial.

8. He further submitted that
applicant is having apprehensions that if
he will appear before the court concerned
then he will be sent to jail.

9. On the other hand learned AGA
submitted that from the order dated
16.8.2022 passed by this Court in Crl.
Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.
5682 of 2022 it reflects that it was not the
time bound order and it is nowhere
mentioned in the order dated 16.8.2022
that
applicant
has
enlarged
on
anticipatory bail, till submission of report
under section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
1 All. Furkan Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
327

10. He further submitted that in view
of the law laid down by the Constitution
Bench of the Apex Court in the case of
[Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State
(NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1] there was
no need for the applicant to file fresh
anticipatory bail application and he may
continue on anticipatory bail till conclusion
of the trial and therefore, there is no need to
pass any fresh order in this regard.

11. I have heard learned counsel for
both the parties and perused the record of
the case.

12. From the record, it reflects that
earlier on 16.8.2022 applicant during
investigation
has
been
released
on
anticipatory bail by this Court vide
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5682
of 2022 and while granting anticipatory
bail to the applicant, this Court ordered
that:-

"Having considered the submission of
learned counsel for parties and taking into
consideration the nature of offence, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, the applicant is entitled to be released
on anticipatory bail in this case.

In the event of arrest, let the applicantFurkaan Ahamad, be released forthwith in
the aforesaid case crime number on bail on
furnishing a personal bond and two
sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction
of
the
Arresting
officer/
Investigating Officer S.H.O. concerned on
the following conditions:

(i) The accused-applicant shall make
himself available for interrogation by
police authorities as and when required
and will cooperate with the investigation:

(ii) The accused-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
them from disclosing such facts to the court
or to any police officer, and

(iii) The accused-applicant shall not
leave India without the previous permission
of the Court.

The papers regarding bail submitted to
the police officer on behalf of the
accused/applicant shall form part of the
case diary and would be submitted to the
court concerned along with same at the
time of submission of report under Section
173(2) Cr.P.C."

13. Therefore, from the order dated
16.8.2023 passed by this Court it reflects
that it was not time bound order and this
Court while granting anticipatory bail to
the applicant did not observe that applicant
is
released
on
anticipatory
bail
till
submission of report under section 173(2)
Cr.P.C.

14. From the order dated 16.8.2022 it
reflects that this Court only observed that in
the event of arrest, applicant be released
forthwith in the aforesaid case crime
number on bail on furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties each in like amount
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
arresting
officer/Investigation
Officer
concerned
subject to certain conditions.

15. This Court further observed that
the papers regarding bail submitted to the
police
officer
on
behalf
of
the
applicant/accused shall form part of the
case diary and would be submitted to the
court concerned alongwith him at the time
of submission of the report under section
173(2) Cr.P.C.

16. The Constitution Bench of Apex
Court
in
the
case
of
Sushila
Aggarwal(supra) while concluding the
328 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
matter in paragraph Nos. 84, 84.1 and 84.2
observed as under-

84. This court answers the reference in
the following manner:

84.1. Regarding question No. 1, it is
held that the protection granted under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. should not always or
ordinarily be limited to a fixed period; it
should inure in favour of the accused
without any restriction as to time. Usual or
standard conditions under Section 437 (3)
read with Section 438 (2) should be
imposed; if there are peculiar features in
regard to any crime or offence (such as
seriousness or gravity etc.), it is open to the
court to impose any appropriate condition
(including fixed nature of relief, or its being
tied to an event or time bound),etc.

84.2. The second question referred to
this court is answered, by holding that the
life of an anticipatory bail does not end
generally at the time and stage when the
accused is summoned by the court, or after
framing of charges, but can also continue
till the end of the trial. However, if there
are any special or peculiar features
necessitating the court to limit the tenure of
anticipatory bail, it is open for it to do so.

17. Therefore, from the law laid down
by the Constitution Bench of the Apex
Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal
(supra) it reflects that the protection
granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should
not always or ordinarily be limited to a
fixed period and it should inure in favour of
the accused without any restriction as to
time. Constitution Bench of the Apex
Court, further observed that the life of an
anticipatory bail does not end generally at
the time and stage when the accused is
summoned by the court, or after framing
charges, but can also continue till the end
of the trial. However Apex Court further
observed that if there are any special or
peculiar features necessitating the court to
limit the tenure of anticipatory bail, it is
open for it to do so.

18. In case at hand, while granting
anticipatory bail to the applicant on
16.8.2022 this Court did not limit the
tenure of his anticipatory bail and therefore,
in view of the observation made by the
Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in
the case of Sushila Aggarwal (supra)
anticipatory bail granted to the applicant
vide order dated 16.8.2022 passed by this
Court should continue till conclusion of the
trial and no interpretation can be made that
while earlier granting anticipatory bail to
the applicant this Court enlarged the
applicant on anticipatory bail only till
submission of the police report under
section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

19. In view of the above, there is no
need to pass any fresh order on the
anticipatory
bail
application
of
the
applicant. Applicant shall continue on
anticipatory bail earlier granted to him by
this Court vide order dated 16.8.2022
passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail
Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 5682 of
2022, till conclusion of the trial.

20. With the above observation, the
anticipatory bail application, accordingly,
stands disposed off.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 328
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Civil Revision No. 27 of 2019