The Allahabad High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail to Inspector Mohammad Firoz Khan close to former Uttar Pradesh cabinet minister Azam Khan, accused of attempt to murder and robbery.
A Single Bench of Justice Samit Gopal passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc anticipatory bail application filed by Mohd Firoz Khan.
The anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC has been filed by the applicant Mohd Firoz Khan, seeking anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Case under Sections 447, 452, 504, 506, 307, 392, 120-B IPC, Police Station Ganj, District Rampur.
The First Information Report of the case was lodged on 13.08.2019, under Sections 447, 452, 504, 506, 307, 392 IPC by Abrar Hussain son of Nanhey resident of Dungarpur Ganj, Rampur against Aley Hasan (C.O), Firoz Khan Inspector, Barkat Ali the contractor and Parvej Alam alleging therein that he was having tea in his house at about 08:00 am on 06.12.2016 wherein Aley Hasan (C.O), Firoz Khan Inspector, Barkat Ali the contractor and Parvej Alam son of Subrati, Unit 27 C & G, Uttar Pradesh, Jal Nigam the Local Engineer, District Rampur all together collectively came to his house and started hurling abuses and barged inside and told him that he is not vacating his house and as such he will be killed.
Thereafter, Aley Hasan (C.O) ordered Firoz Khan to shoot him on which Firoz Khan with a 315 bore country made pistol fired indiscriminately upon him which went from beside his head and hit the wall from which he got saved. Parvej Alam and contractor Barkat Ali were saying to murder him. He somehow ran away and saved himself. The household articles being washing machine, fridge, LCD, 3 tola gold, 10 tola silver and Rs 5,000/- were looted by Firoz Khan Inspector and Parvej Alam. His wife Smt Swaleha and brother-in-law Julfikar, mother-in-law Najuk Begum were told by Aley Hasan (C.O) that if they make a complaint to higher officials then they would be implicated in case of charas and sent to jail.
He further said that he is a person of Samajwadi Party and no one can do anything against him. The house was then demolished using a Bulldozer. He tried to get a report lodged at the police station but was scolded and chucked out. He then went to the Superintendent of Police, Sadhna Goswami who also did not help him by stating that the control of Dungarpur Basti had been given by Azam Khan to Aley Hasan (C.O). He states that the accused persons are of Samajwadi Party and they are doing illegal works. He prays that his articles, jewellery and money be recovered and legal action be taken. The First Information Report is thus lodged.
Counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. It is argued that the applicant was posted in a police force in the said area.
It is further argued that a First Information Report was lodged on 05.02.2016 as Case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC by Abrar against Imran Khan, Sajjad Khan, Muzaffar Khan and Bhagwan Das stating therein that he was cheated and a wrong land was sold to him whereas on the said land, colony by the name of Ashra Colony is being constructed and the land is a government land.
It is also argued that as such the applicant was in occupation of a government land in an illegal manner.
It is further argued that in Case even a charge sheet dated 18.06.2016 has been submitted against the said accused persons on which the trial court has taken cognizance and summoned the applicant.
Counsel for the applicant said that the applicant during the pendency of the investigation of the matter was granted anticipatory bail till submission of police report under Section 173(2) CrPC by a coordinate Bench of the Court order dated 20.11.2020.
Counsel for the applicant further said that on the said charge sheet vide order dated 07.04.2022 the Court of the 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur has summoned the applicant and the case is now pending trial.
Per contra, counsel for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and argued that the conduct of the applicant is apparent from the allegations levelled in the First Information Report. The applicant being a public servant and posted in a police force misused his official post and was indulged in illegal activities. He even made an attempt to murder the first informant. There are specific allegations of robbery against the applicant. The role of firing is specifically assigned to the applicant. It is argued that due to luck the first informant got saved.
It is further argued that in the matter, the investigation has concluded. The order sheet of the trial court shows that the applicant was summoned vide order dated 07.04.2022, and thereafter, since he did not comply with the said order, the trial court vide order dated 13.07.2022 issued bailable warrants of Rs 5,000/- against him. Again due to non appearance of the accused, bailable warrants of Rs 10,000/- were issued vide order dated 06.07.2022.
It is also argued that since the applicant was granted anticipatory bail during the pendency of investigation with a specific order that was till submission of police report, if any, under Section 173(2) CrPC and he was enjoying the said order, it cannot be said that he was not in the knowledge of filing of the charge sheet and the proceeding starting against him but even in spite of the same, he absconded and did not appear before the trial court on the call through summons after which the trial court was compelled to issue bailable warrants against him. It is argued that prima facie offence is disclosed. The anticipatory bail application of the applicant be rejected.
“After having heard the counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is named in the First Information Report. There are specific allegations against him of firing with a country made pistol upon the first informant but he was saved somehow. Further, there are allegations of the applicant committing robbery along with co accused Parvej Alam of household articles, jewellery and money. The charge sheet in the matter has been submitted. The applicant was granted anticipatory bail during investigation but after filing of charge sheet and order summoning him in the trial he did not appear before the trial court due to which the trial court has issued bailable warrants against him. There has been intentional abscondence by him.
While considering the scope of anticipatory bail under section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code the Apex Court in the case of Adri Dharan Das v State of West Bengal : (2005) 4 SCC 303, relying on the earlier Constitutional Bench judgment in case of Balachand Jain v State of Madhya Pradesh : (1976) 4 SCC 572″, the Court observed while rejecting the anticipatory bail application.