Disposed

Lallu and 21 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Oct 2020ABAIL/4170/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court confirmed the interim anticipatory bail granted earlier vide order dated 13.07.2020 to the applicants in Crime No. 407 of 2020. The application seeking anticipatory bail has been disposed of in accord with the interim order.

What did the court decide?

The present application stands disposed of based on the interim order dated 13.07.2020 granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicants.

Lallu and 21 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4170 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Lallu And 21 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Niraj Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Vide order dated 13.07.2020, the applicants have been enlarged on interim anticipatory bail. The said order is quoted below:-

¶6

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶7

This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicants seeking anticipatory bail in case crime no. 407 of 2020 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 352, 323, 504, 506, 452, 332, 353 IPC, PS. Mauaima, District Prayagraj during the pendency of the investigtion after their first anticipatory bail application was being dismissed as withdrawn by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 26.06.2020.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicants are labours and job card holders. The details of their job cards have been filed as Annexure no.3 to the application. It is next submitted that applicants pursuant to their job card were performing labour works but their payment has been withheld since 23.05.2020. On raising demand of their payment, some altercation took place between the informant and the applicants and in this background of the fact, applicants raised their grievances to the authorities concerned. It is also submitted that with regard to grievance of the applicants, explanation was also called from the first informant by the B.D.O. on the direction of D.M., Prayagraj. Thereafter, the informant has moved representation dated 22.06.2020 before SHO, Mauaima. F.I.R. has been lodged by the informant in order to save her skin. Applicants have no criminal history to their credit. Lastly, it is submitted that they have apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicants are released on bail, they would not misuse the liberty and would cooperate with the investigation.

¶9

Learned Additional Government Advocate, who has accepted notice of this case on behalf of State of U.P. has opposed the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the applicants.

¶10

Looking to the facts of the case, reasonable apprehension of arrest, taking into consideration the gravity and nature of accusation, there being no criminal antecedents of the applicants and there being no possibility of their fleeing from justice, this court is of the view that at this stage prima facie case for exercising its discretionary power under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure is made out in favour of applicants.

¶11

Learned Additional Government Advocate prays for and is granted four

¶12

weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Learned A.G.A. shall communicate this order to the investigating officer of the case and Superintendent of Police concerned. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶13

List this case on 25.08.2020 before the appropriate Bench.

¶14

Till the next date of listing, in the event of arrest of applicants Lallu, Raj Kumar, Subhash, Ashwani Kumar, Babban, Mahesh Kumar, Ajay, Vinod, Raj Kapoor, Gulab Chand, Kandhai, Ashok Kumar, Rahul, Chandrama, Jitendra, Jang Bahadur, Satish, Pyare Lal, Radhey, Ram Dulare, Kuldeep and Manjeet involved in the aforesaid case shall be released on interim anticipatory bail on their 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.

¶15

1)The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶16

2)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 officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶17

3)The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶18

4)In default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the investigating officers shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶19

It is made clear that in case certified copy of this order is not issued due to COVID-19 pandemic, the copy of order downloaded by the official website of the Allahabad High Court shall be acted upon."

¶20

While instructions may have been received by learned AGA, no adverse fact has been brought to the knowledge of the Court.

¶21

In view of the above, in the event of arrest of the applicants - Lallu, Raj Kumar, Subhash, Ashwani Kumar, Babban, Mahesh Kumar, Ajay, Vinod, Raj Kapoor, Gulab Chand, Kandhai, Ashok Kumar, Rahul, Chandrama, Jitendra, Jang Bahadur, Satish, Pyare Lal, Radhey, Ram Dulare, Kuldeep and Manjeet involved in Case Crime No. 407 of 2020, under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 352, 323, 504, 506, 452, 332, 353 IPC, P.S. Mauaima, District Prayagraj , they shall be released on anticipatory bail in terms of the order dated 13.07.2020.

¶22

Present application stands disposed of .

¶23

Order Date :- 19.10.2020 Abhilash

Lallu and 21 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lallu and 21 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Kuldeep Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhupendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdullah Vs State of U.P.

Nasreen Jahan Siddiqui Vs State of U.P. and Another

Haroon Vs State of U.P.

Ashok Yadav Vs State of U.P.