Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10910 of 2021 Applicant :- Mohd Saied Ahmad And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Adya Prasad Tewari,Shahnawaz Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicant no. 1 namely Mohd. Saied Ahmad had died.
This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the applicants Jafar and Sahida Khatoon in Case Crime No. 0071 of 2020, under sections 323, 504, 308, 325 I.P.C., P.S.- Nautanwa, District - Maharajganj.
Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the first information report has been lodged in respect of an incident dated 22.03.2020 on 24.03.2020 as such there is delay in lodging the first information report and no proper explanation has been given for the said delay. It has further been submitted that after 12 days from the date of incident medical of the injured has been conducted which creates doubt on the alleged story. It is further submitted that applicants have no criminal history and applicants are prepared to furnish sureties and bonds, there is no possibility of their either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the evidence. Hence, prima-facie case for anticipatory bail has been made out.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the grounds taken by the applicants for anticipatory bail may be the good grounds for regular bail and on the alleged grounds, anticipatory bail cannot be granted, hence, the applicants should be directed to go and apply for regular bail before the court below.
Considered the submissions of both the sides. It appears that the injured has sustained seven injuries and he has also incurred fracture. The grounds taken in support of the anticipatory bail may be taken when the regular bail application is given. The first information report has been lodged 15 months before and till now there appears that no serious effort has been made for the arrest of the applicant. This shows that there is no threat of arrest. It is pertinent to mention that the anticipatory bail is not a substitute of a regular bail and for it, some extraordinary circumstances are required in comparison to regular bail. There should be some special reason for taking recourse of the provisions of anticipatory bail. There must also be a threat of arrest of the accused. The applicants have not been able to show any real threat of arrest or any extraordinary circumstances, as such, I do not find any ground for giving benefit of anticipatory bail, hence the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicants is rejected.
Regular bail application may be given before the appropriate forum and if such application is given, the court below shall consider and disposed of the bail application expeditiously and preferably on the same day in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 30.7.2021 sailesh