Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 134 (ALL)

Furkan Ahmad v. State Of U. P.

2024-01-11

SAMEER JAIN

body2024
JUDGMENT : 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. 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. 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. 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 applicant-Furkaan 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 matter in paragraph Nos. The Constitution Bench of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal(supra) while concluding the 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. 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.