Allowed

Harendra Kumar Masih Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC2 Sept 2019BAIL/34310/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge granted anticipatory bail to two applicants accused of offences under IPC, holding that the dispute appears essentially civil in nature. The court imposed standard conditions and directed the police to conclude the investigation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted till the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., subject to bond and conditions.

Harendra Kumar Masih Another Vs State of U.P. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34310 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Harendra Kumar Masih Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Arvind Srivastava,Ali Hasan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶5

The lawyers are on strike, however, one of the applicants i.e. applicant no. 1 - Harendra Kumar Masih is personally present before this Court and has informed the Court that the police authorities are chasing the applicants and in case the matter is not heard they have apprehension that they will be arrested by the police and, thus, in the interest of justice the Court proceeds to hear the case on merits.

¶6

The contention of applicant no. 1 is that he is the Executive Secretary and applicant no. 2 is the President of the Society, the Society being United Fellowship for Christian Service and it is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The further contention of applicant no. 1 is that the dispute in question is purely of a civil dispute to which a cloak of criminality has been given. Much reliance has been placed upon the averments as made in paragraphs nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 and onwards of affidavit filed in support of the application. He further contended that the complainant is in the habit of filing a false and successive complaints and that a purely civil dispute is being sought to be converted into a criminal case only with the intention of building pressure. The further contention is that even the injunction application filed by the informant/ complainant has been rejected in a suit said to be pending as on date. He further contends that a writ petition was filed before this Court in which an order was passed, copy of which has been annexed at page no. 150 of the present affidavit filed in support of the bail application, which has been perused by the Court. He further contends that in compliance of the said order, an application for anticipatory bail was filed before the In-charge Sessions Judge, Jhansi which has been rejected vide order dated 16.8.2019 which too has been perused by the Court. He contends that matter needs deeper and fairer investigation before any arrest should be given effect to.

¶7

Keeping in view the reasons as stated above, the facts and circumstances of the case as have been discussed at the Bar of this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation and the fact that the applicants have no criminal antecedents, the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶8

In the event of arrest of the applicants, Harendra Kumar Masih and Shantha Carunia, involved in Case Crime No.0296 of 2019, under Sections 34, 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, I.P.C., Police Station Nawabad, District Jhansi, he shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent

¶9

Court on his 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 with the following conditions:-

¶10

(i) the applicants shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶11

(ii) the applicants 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 office;

¶12

(iii) the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶13

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶14

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation of the present case in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order independently without being prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicants.

¶15

The applicants are directed to produce a certified copy of this order before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶16

In view of aforesaid, the application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, allowed.

¶17

Order Date :- 2.9.2019 Kuldeep

Harendra Kumar Masih Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harendra Kumar Masih Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Khan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pramod Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Harsh Jaiswal Vs State of Up

Pankaj and Another Vs State of Up

Dhananjay Bind Vs State of U.P.