Allowed

Nipendra and another v. State of up

Allahabad HC20 Oct 2021ABAIL/17307/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge bench of Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to applicants in a case involving FIR under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332 IPC without expressing opinion on merits, relying on constitutional bench precedent and imposing standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicants directed to be released on bail after arrest by furnishing personal bond with two sureties each, subject to specified conditions including non-interference with witnesses and presence at tr

Nipendra and another Vs State of up — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 17307 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Nipendra And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, 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 with a prayer to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 348 of 2021, under Sections-147, 148, 149, 307, 332 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Naugawan Sadat, District- J.P.Nagar, during pendency of trial.

¶10

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 U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A. as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U. P. Amendment) is not required.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. As per the FIR the role of firing upon police-party has been assigned to the applicants. It is a case of no injury as nobody got injured. The applicants have no criminal history to their credit as stated in paragraph no. 6 to the affidavit. 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.

¶13

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 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

¶14

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

In the event of arrest of the applicants- Nipendra and Munendra, shall 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:-

¶16

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

¶17

The applicants shall surrender their passports, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Their passports shall remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.

¶18

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;

¶19

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.

¶20

In case, the applicants misuse 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

Order Date :- 20.10.2021

¶25

Sweety

¶26

Digitally signed by Justice Rajiv Joshi Date: 2021.10.20 12:22:30 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nipendra and another v. State of up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nipendra and another v. State of up

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

Ajay Patel Vs State of U.P.

Sumita Negi @ Jainiya Negi Vs State of U.P.

Mithun Chauhan Vs State of U.P.

Rajneesh Kumar and Another Vs State of Up

Jitendra @ Juta Vs State of U.P.

Chhanga @ Akbar Vs State of U.P.