Allowed

Nitin Panda v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2021ABAIL/10748/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an applicant's application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., granting a personal bond with sureties and imposing conditions regarding investigation cooperation and stay within the state.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties and conditions to cooperate with investigation and remain within Uttar Pradesh.

Nitin Panda Vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10748 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Nitin Panda Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ravi Shankar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

(1) Heard Sri Ravi Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶6

(2) The instant application is being moved by the applicant Nitin Panda invoking the powers of Section 438 Cr.P.C., apprehending his arrest in connection with Case Crime No. 283 of 2020, under Sections 188, 332 IPC, Section 3/4 Public Gambling Act, Section 3 Mahamari Act, and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Attarsuiya, District Prayagraj during the pendency of the trial.

¶7

(3) The instant anticipatory bail application is being filed by the applicant aggrieved by the order dated 23.02.2021 by which learned trial court has rejected his anticipatory bail application. Hence, the present anticipatory bail application.

¶8

(4) Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Vs. State of U.P. , hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned AGA as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P.Amendment) is not required.

¶9

(5) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicants have got no criminal antecedents and he has not undergone any imprisonment after conviction by any court of law in relation to any cognizable offence previously. An assurance was also advanced by learned counsel for the applicants on behalf of the applicant that he would render all requisite co-operation and assistance in the process of law and with the investigation agency and shall not create any hindrance to reach to its logical conclusion and shall not flee away from the course of justice.

¶10

(6) Learned counsel for the applicant has strenuously argued that the applicant have been made target just to besmirch his reputation and belittle him in the public estimate by the informant. Number of arguments were advanced by learned counsel for the applicants to demonstrate the falsity of the accusation made in the FIR against the applicant by the informant. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon the judgements in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 ; Jogender Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1994) 4 SCC 260 and Sanaul Haque Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2008) Crl.L.J. 1998 , to buttress his contention.

¶11

(7) In the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court has opined that the pith and core is that the police officer before arrest must put questions to himself, Why arrest?, Is it really required?, What purpose it will serve?, What object it will achieve? If it is only after these questions are addressed and one or other conditions, as enumerated above, are satisfied, the power of arrest needs to be exercised. Before the arrest the police office should have a reason to believe on the basis of information and material that the accused has committed the offence. Apart from this, the police officer has to satisfy further that the arrest is necessary for one or more purposes envisaged in sub-clauses (a) to (e) to Clause-I of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶12

(8) From the FIR, it is clear that the applicant is not named nor any recovery has been made from the possession of the applicant. During course of investigation, it has been borne out that the premises belongs to the applicant and the applicant is ready to cooperate in the fair investigation in the matter.

¶13

(9) Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application by mentioning that though the applicant has got no criminal antecedent but there is nothing on record to satisfy that the police personnel are after the applicant to arrest them. The alleged apprehension on behalf of applicant is imaginary and unfounded one. Learned AGA has also submitted that in view of the seriousness of the allegations made in the FIR, the applicant is not entitled for any relaxation from this Court.

¶14

(10) After considering the record of the case as available before the Court, in the light of rival submissions made at the Bar and keeping in view the nature and gravity of the accusation, antecedents of the applicant, his undertaking to make himself available to the authorities whenever required, the Court feels satisfied that it would be expedient to grant an order of anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant. Thus, the instant Anticipatory Bail Application stands ALLOWED .

¶15

(11) Without expressing any opinion upon ultimate merits of the case either ways which may be adversely affect the investigation and subsequent stage of the case, the Court directs that in the event of arrest of the applicant in aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the line amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer till submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. with the condition that :-

¶16

(I) The applicant shall make themselves available for the interrogation by the police as and when required. The Investigation Officer of the case would give 48 hours prior notice or telephonically inform the concerned accused-applicant to remain available to him for the purpose of interrogation and the accused-applicants are obliged to abide by such directions.

¶17

(II) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threats or comments to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the correct facts to the court or to the police officer.

¶18

(III) The Investigating Officer of the case would make all necessary endeavour to gear up the investigation in utmost transparent and

¶19

professional way and would try to conclude the same within a maximum period of 90 days. During this period the accused-applicant would not leave the State of Uttar Pradesh without informing the Investigating Officer of the case and sharing his contact number.

¶20

(IV) In the event the applicant is having their passports, they will have to surrender the same before the concerned SP/SSP of the District till the submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

¶21

(12) In the event, the applicant breach or attempt to breath any of the aforesaid conditions or wilfully violate above conditions or abstains himself from the investigation, it would be open for the Investigating Officer or the concerned authority to apply before the court of Sessions for cancellation of bail and the Court of Sessions has every liberty and freedom to revoke the anticipatory bail after recording the reasons for the same.

¶22

Order Date :- 23.7.2021 Abhishek Sri.

Nitin Panda v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Panda 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

Irfan Vs State of Up and Another

Smt. Basanti Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Avadhesh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Suraj Sharma and Others Vs State of Up and Others

Pankaj Sahu Vs State of U.P.

Dheeraj @ Chinga Vs State of U.P.