Allowed

Sahansar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jun 2020ABAIL/2536/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application, the court directed the release of the applicant, Sahansar, who was implicated as a conspirator in abduction and abetment. The court noted no objections from the state and ruled in favor of bail while imposing specific conditions on his conduct.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on anticipatory bail on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties subject to eight conditions.

Sahansar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

In Chamber

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2536 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Sahansar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Bharti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

This bail application is being disposed of as per the order dated 4.4.2020 of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

¶6

Notice of this application was served on the Government Advocate on 06.03.2020 but as yet no objection has been filed on behalf of the State.Notice on Government Advocate is sufficient as per section 438(3) Cr.P.c. (U.P. Amendment). Hence this application is being finally decided.

¶7

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Sahansar, with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 35 of 2019, under Sections 366, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station- Shahpur, District- Muzaffar Nagar, during pendency of trial.

¶8

The first information report has been lodged alleging abduction the victim by Ashish son of Dhan Singh and Jagat Singh @ Kala son of Sahansar. The applicant has been implicated as conspirator in the entire crime. After the victim was recovered she has not levelled any allegation of abduction or rape against the applicant , who is father of one of the accused, Jagat Singh @ Kala in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It appears that the applicant has been implicated only because he is father of an accused in this case.

¶9

Hence the applicant is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 and order dated 22.05.2020 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.2609 of 2020. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶10

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and their

¶11

antecedents, the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶12

Let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶13

The applicant shall not leave India during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

¶14

The applicant shall surrender their passport, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.

¶15

That 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶16

The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law to ensure presence of the applicant.

¶17

In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the trial Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

¶18

The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶19

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

¶20

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶21

Order Date :- 3.6.2020 SS

Sahansar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahansar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumit Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Naushad Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kunwar Lal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Balveer Singh Vs State of U.P.and Another

Suresh Vs State of U.P.

Aakash Dubey and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.