The Allahabad High Court has approved conditional anticipatory bail to Dr Shaila Tahir, chairperson of Nawabganj municipality, Bareilly. Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Anticipatory bail Application U/S 438 CrPC filed by Tahir.
Tahir moved the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 after her anticipatory bail application was rejected by the Bareilly Sessions Judge by the order dated April 4, 2021. The counsel for the applicant argued that the informant Kailash Chand, an officiating clerk in the office of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Nawabganj, Bareilly, lodged the FIR dated March 26, 2021 against the accused, Munnu @ Mumtazuddin, Munnan and five-six unknown persons.
The counsel argued that the applicant is not named in the FIR, but after manipulation, her name has been added. It is also argued that in fact no such incident took place as alleged by the prosecution in the FIR. It is urged that the FIR has been lodged on account of political pressure of the ruling party.
The applicant has explained her criminal history in the bail application by contending that in five cases, closer/final report has been submitted and in two cases, arrest of the applicant has been stayed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and in two cases, the applicant is on bail.
Lastly, it is submitted that in 1995, the applicant was elected as Chairman of Nagar Panchayat and defeated Pushpa Rathore. Thereafter, in 2001, 2006 and 2017, the applicant was again elected as Chairman of Nagar Palika, Nawabganj by defeating Premlata Rathore, who is the wife of real brother of Ravindra Singh Rathore, who was the district president and at present the Member of State Executive of the ruling party and the informant is closely associated with Ravindra Singh Rathore, because he was appointed by Ravindra Singh Rathore, therefore the applicant has falsely been implicated in the case.
The counsel said that the applicant was elected as chairman of the Nagar Palika Nawabganj 2017, but due to political pressure, she was not given the oath, then she filed a petition before the Court and on January 10, 2018, the Court directed the District Magistrate Bareilly to perform the oath ceremony on January 17, 2018, but in spite of the order of the Court, the oath ceremony was not organized, then she filed Contempt of Court before the Court and when this Court issued a contempt notice then she took the oath, copy of aforesaid order dated January 10, 2018 of the coordinate Bench of the Court has been brought on record as to the affidavit filed in support of the anticipatory bail application.
The counsel for the applicant submitted that in case, applicant is released on bail, she would not misuse the liberty and would cooperate with the investigation.
Additional Government Advocate, who has accepted notice of the case on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh, opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant by contending that accused persons named in the FIR are associated with the applicant, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant has been falsely implicated.
“Having heard the argument of Counsel for the parties, I find that the AGA opposed the bail, but does not dispute that in a computer-generated copy of FIR, name of the applicant has been added later on by hand at, which according to the applicant is a clear case of manipulation. There is no specific allegation against the applicant,” the Court observed.
“Looking at the facts of the case, reasonable apprehension of arrest, taking into consideration the gravity and nature of accusation and there being no possibility of her fleeing from justice, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in the case,” the Court said.
The Court ordered that in the event of arrest of the applicant Shaila Tahir involved in the aforesaid case shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned till the submission of the police report, if any, under Section 173(2) CrPC with the following conditions:-
Also Read: Supreme Court to take up plea challenging Patna High Court order on evaluation of land today
(1) The applicant shall make herself available for interrogation by a Police officer, as and when required.
(2) 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.
(3) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.
(4) In default of any of the conditions mentioned above or in case it is found that the applicant has obtained this order concealing any material facts, the investigating officers shall be at liberty to file an appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to her.