Allowed

Raj Bahadur and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2020ABAIL/4553/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail for four applicants charged with abetment of suicide and threats. The court directed their release on a personal bond with sureties, subject to strict conditions including non-departure from India and presence at trial.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each, subject to specific conditions.

Raj Bahadur and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4553 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Raj Bahadur And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Avanish Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Order on Criminal Misc. Exemption Application

¶7

This exemption application is allowed.

¶8

Order on Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application

¶9

The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants, Raj Bahadur, Indrajeet Sharma, Mahendra Kumar @ Chhotu and Kuldeep , with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 299 of 2020 under Sections- 306, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Shivli, District- Ramabai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat) during pendency of trial.

¶10

There is allegation of abetement of suicide and threatening against the applicants in the FIR.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that on bare perusal of FIR, it appears that the ingredients for constituting the offence under Section 306 IPC are not made out against the applicants. He has further submitted that applicant No.2, Indrajeet Sharma, has lodged the FIR regarding his brother's murder, Santosh Kumar Sharma, as Case Crime No.290 of 2020. The deceased had affair with the brother of applicant No.2, namely, Santosh Kumar Sharm, and after the murder of Santosh Kumar Sharma, she was quite disturbed and committed suicide. The applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. They have no criminal history to their credit. The applicants have definite apprehension that they may be arrested by the police any time.

¶12

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants, but could not dispute the aforesaid

¶13

facts.

¶14

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.

¶15

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and their antecedents, the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.

¶16

Let the applicants involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

The applicants 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 applicants.

¶21

In case, the applicants 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)-

¶22

2020 SCC Online SC 98 .

¶23

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 their bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

Order Date :- 15.12.2020 Ruchi Agrahari

¶27

Digitally signed by JUSTICE SIDDHARTH Date: 2020.12.15 17:13:21 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Raj Bahadur and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Bahadur and 3 Others 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

Anil Chakravarty Vs State of U.P.

Smt Suresh Bala Vs State of U.P.

Asif Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rauf Haji @ Mohd. Raoof Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Reeta Balwani Vs State of U.P.

Imran Vs State of U.P.