Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 214 (ALL)

Suhail @ Suhail Khan v. State of U. P.

2025-02-06

SHREE PRAKASH SINGH

body2025
JUDGMENT : Shree Prakash Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record. 2. The present bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in case Crime No. 395 of 2019, under sections 307/504/506 of the IPC, Police Station-Shahabad, District-Hardoi. 3. From perusal of the order sheet, it appears that on 14.11.2024, following order was passed wherein the present applicant has been granted interim anticipatory bail:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to release him on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 395 of 2019, under sections 307/504/506 of the IPC, Police Station-Shahabad, District-Hardoi." 4. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated. He added that the role of the present applicant is distinguishable from the role of the main accused namely, Furkan @ Bhaiya S/o Ikbal, who had opened fire over the injured. He next added that there is no whisper in the statement of the victim recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C . that there is any role of the present applicant so as to narration/allegations in the first information report is concerned. He submits that the applicant is always available for cooperation in the investigation proceedings and he undertakes that he will remain present on each and every date before the trial court. He also submits that the applicant has no previous criminal history and there is an acute apprehension that the police will arrest him for his no fault and as such, submission is that he may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that though, it is not narrated/stated in the first information report or in the statement of the victim recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C ., but, subsequently, in the statement of the victim recorded as P.W.-2, she has attributed the role of exhortation to the present applicant and thus, submission is that the applicant is not entitled for any relief. 6. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the record, this Court finds it a fit case for grant of interim anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, till the next date of listing, the present applicant-Suhail @ Suhail Khan, shall be released forthwith, in case of his arrest, in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on an interim anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that in case chargesheet is submitted the applicants shall not tamper with the evidence during the trial; (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness; (vi) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted; (vii) that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court concerned shall have the liberty to cancel the bail.List/put up this matter in the week commencing 09.12.2024. 8. In the meantime, learned counsel for the State shall file counter affidavit. 9. From perusal of the order dated 14.11.2024, it transpires that learned State counsel was directed to file counter affidavit, but the same has not been filed as yet. Learned State Counsel has failed to demonstrate that there is any adversarial fact which are pleaded in the bail application. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on an interim anticipatory bail after thoroughly considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to submit any fact that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case. 10. This Court finds that the applicant was enlarged on an interim anticipatory bail after thoroughly considering the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the State has also failed to submit any fact that the applicant is not cooperating with the investigation proceedings or otherwise any glaring fact which can adversely affect the merit of the case. 10. In view of the aforesaid, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed while extending anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Suhail @ Suhail Khan till disposal of the trial subject to the following conditions:- (i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) 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 or tamper with the evidence; (iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court; (iv) that the applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; (v) that the applicant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. 11. In case of default, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to move application for vacation of this order.