The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court while allowing an anticipatory bail application observed that a person can move subsequent bail anticipatory bail applications on the emergence of substantial change in facts and circumstances.
A Single Bench of Justice Mohd Faiz Alam Khan passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application filed by Shahjad Alais Mohammad Sajjad and Another.
The anticipatory bail application has been moved by the accused/ applicants- Shahzad @ Mohammad Sajjad and Peena @ Shama Begam in Case under Sections 306, 506 IPC, Police Station Malhipur, District Shrawasti, with the prayer to enlarge her on anticipatory bail as she is apprehending arrest in the above-mentioned case.
Counsel for the accused-applicants while pressing the bail application submitted that it is a case of false implication. In the FIR which has been lodged by the mother of the deceased various allegations have been levelled against the applicants with regard to the fact that only a day before marriage they refused to solemnize the marriage that daughter of the applicants on the pretext that Rs One Lakh as agreed were not paid and humiliate the same the deceased (daughter ) committed suicide by hanging herself. Postmortem reports of the deceased reflect that she had died due to asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging.
Counsel for the applicants has drawn attention of the court towards, which is copy of an application given by the father of the deceased, namely, Mushtaque Ali on 24.5.2021, wherein it is stated that the deceased was under some kind of depression and in that state of mind she had committed suicide.
It is vehemently submitted that this information has been given with utmost promptness and there was no time available to informant party to have manipulated the facts and no allegation of any kind has been levelled in this regard against the applicants or any other accused persons, in that informant however, after many days of written information an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C has been given by the informant and the allegations therein have been aggravated with the help of legal professional.
It is further submitted that during the course of investigation the applicants have approached the Court by filing an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C and order dated 29.11.2021 interim protection was granted and on 12.10.2022 the said anticipatory bail application was allowed and till submission of police report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C liberty of the applicants was protected.
It is vehemently submitted that the applicant have cooperated in the investigation, their liberty was protected during the course of investigation and since they have cooperated in the investigation the Investigating Officer did not find any opportunity or occasion to arrest them and thus their liberty be also protected during the trial.
AGA for the State submitted that the second Anticipatory Bail Application moved on behalf of the applicants appears to be non-maintainable as the applicants had approached the Court earlier also.
It is further submitted that on merits also having regard to the role played by the applicant in commission of crime they are not entitled for any protection.
The Court observed that,
Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that the applicants have earlier approached the court by filing an anticipatory bail application which has been finally disposed on 12.10.2022 by a Coordinate Bench of the Court, however, the protection was granted till the submission police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
Thus, Prima facie there appears no bar in the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to moving of subsequent bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C and similarly there may not be any restriction for moving anticipatory bail applications, if there is change in circumstances.
Thus in the considered opinion of the Court when an accused may move subsequent bail application he may also move subsequent anticipatory bail applications on the emergence of substantial change in facts and circumstances.
“Coming to the merits of the case it could not be disputed that earlier the protection from arrest was granted by a Coordinate Bench of the Court in favour of the applicants i.e till submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC. It also appears to be an admitted situation that now the charge sheet has been filed against the applicant. Nothing has been brought in the knowledge of the court which may suggest that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation.
Thus, having regard to the law laid down in Sushila Agarwal v State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1 as well as in Nathu Singh Vs State of U.P and Others, 2021(6) SCC 64, MANU/SC/0360/2021 the anticipatory bail application is worth allow and is allowed, as such”, the Court further observed.
The Court ordered that,
It is provided that in the event of arrest of the applicants- Shahzad @ Mohammad Sajjad and Peena @ Shama Begam in the above noted case under any process of the trial court or on their appearance/ surrender before the trial court within 20 days from today i.e on or before 29.01.2024, whichever is earlier, they shall be released forthwith on anticipatory bail on their furnishing personal bonds with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicants if not arrested earlier, shall surrender before the trial court within 20 days from today i.e on or before 29.01.2024 and will cooperate in the trial.
2. The applicants shall not make any attempt to influence the prosecution witnesses and will also not commit any crime during their release on anticipatory bail.
3. The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and especially when the prosecution witnesses are present in court.
4. The trial court in addition to these conditions may also impose any other suitable condition.
If in the opinion of the trial court default of any of the conditions placed above is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of their bail and shall proceed against him in accordance with law.