Allowed

Javed and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2021ABAIL/2333/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court granted anticipatory bail to four applicants (Javed, Salim, Ashok Kumar, Dushyant) under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held that while not expressing an opinion on merits due to parity grounds, the applicants were entitled to bail for a limited period citing Supreme Court precedents. Bail conditions included personal bonds and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted for a limited period until cognizance is taken by the court on the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.

Javed and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 73

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2333 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Javed And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Srivastava,Ajai Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Certified copy of FIR has been filed by learned counsel for the applicants, which is taken on record.

¶6

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

¶7

Order on Criminal Misc. Exemption Application

¶8

This exemption application is allowed.

¶9

Order on Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application

¶10

The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicants, namely, Javed, Salim, Ashok Kumar and Dushyant, in Case Crime No.-507 of 2020, under Sections- 387, 504, 506, 120-B I.P.C., Police StationJalaun, District- Jalaun.

¶11

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.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the co-accuseds, Ramesh Chandra, Munni Devi and Magan Lal, have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court on 04.02.2021 in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 2273 of 2021. The case of the applicants stand on identical footing, hence the applicants are also entitled for anticipatory bail on the

¶13

ground of parity. The applicants have definite apprehension that they may be arrested by the police any time.

¶14

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicants, but does not dispute the claim of parity.

¶15

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and their antecedents, the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail for limited period in this case considering the exceptions considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98 .

¶16

In the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on anticipatory bail till cognizance is taken by the court on police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station/ concerned Court with the following conditions:-

¶17

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;

¶18

(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶19

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

¶20

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

¶21

(v) 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.

¶22

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicants.

¶23

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation, if pending, of the present case in accordance with law, expeditiously, independently without being prejudiced by any observations made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicants.

¶24

The applicants are directed to produce a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, if investigation is in progress who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

¶25

Order Date :- 5.2.2021 Ruchi Agrahari

Javed and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Javed and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

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

Smt. Rita Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mehrauddin and 9 Others Vs State of U.P.

Sant Ram @ Santi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Roop Chandra Prajapati Vs State of U.P.

Geeta Devi and Another Vs State of U.P.

Mayank Tyagi Vs State of U.P.