Zakir Husain vs. State Of Up

Facts

The applicant, Zakir Husain, sought anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 105 of 2024, registered under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 34(2) of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019. The applicant claimed to be falsely implicated, alleging that he was running a wholesale shop and was targeted due to refusing a bribe. The prosecution contended that a raid on the applicant's premises revealed he was operating a nursing home/clinic without a valid degree and license. The applicant's counsel presented a GST registration certificate for 'Allied Healthcare' as evidence of running a wholesale shop. The Court noted the applicant's failure to demonstrate he was running a wholesale shop and that there was no material to support the claim of false implication.

Held

The Court held that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that he was running a wholesale shop, nor was there any material to substantiate his claim of being falsely implicated. The Court emphasized that a plea of false implication requires a specific and factual foundation, which was absent in the applicant's pleadings, citing precedents like Ruli Ram Vs. State of Haryana, Ram Udgar Singh Vs. State of Bihar, and Brahm Swaroop Vs. State of U.P. The Court also referred to Supreme Court judgments in Sabita Paul v. State of West Bengal and Shrikant Upadhyay and others Vs State of Bihar and another, reiterating that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary relief to be exercised in exceptional cases of false implication. The Court found that the material and allegations indicated an offence was made out against the applicant, and granting anticipatory bail would adversely impact the rights and interests of the informant/complainant/victim, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The applicant had not shown any harassment, humiliation, unjustified detention, over-implication, or frivolity in the prosecution. Therefore, the applicant was not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case of false implication warranting the grant of anticipatory bail under the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court, considering the allegations of operating a nursing home/clinic without a valid degree and license? 2. Whether the applicant has demonstrated exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of anticipatory bail, balancing individual liberty against the interests of justice and public order? Contentions of the Petitioner (Applicant): The applicant argued that he was falsely implicated in the case. He claimed to be operating a wholesale shop and suggested the proceedings were initiated due to his refusal to pay a bribe. He relied on the GST registration certificate for 'Allied Healthcare' as evidence of his business. The applicant's counsel invoked the principles of anticipatory bail to prevent harassment and unjustified detention. Contentions of the Opposite Party (State): The State contended that a raid revealed the applicant was running a nursing home/clinic without the requisite valid degree and license. The State implicitly argued that the allegations made out a cognizable offence and that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient material to support his plea of false implication or demonstrate any exceptional circumstances for anticipatory bail.