Court denied anticipatory bail citing prima facie case but directed applicants to surrender within 90 days and apply for bail, referencing established precedents, warning of coercive action for non-compliance.
Direction to surrender within 90 days and apply for bail; coercive action if not complied with.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 73
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 4364 of 2021
Applicant :- Satyapal Sharma And 5 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sumit Goyal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A for the State.
The instant anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants,Satyapal Sharma,Alkesh Sharma,Amit Sharma, Kehar Singh,Sandeep Kumar, Vipin Kumar , with a prayer to release them on bail in Complaint Case No. 3399of 2011(Session Case No, 31 of 2021) , under Sections- 147, 148, 328, 387, 504, ,406, 427, 341, 342, 454 IPC, and section 3(1) (X) of SC/S Act Police Station- Fetheypur, District- Saharanpur, during pendency of trial.
The applicants are not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail. The offences alleged are prima facie made out from the allegations in the FIR.
However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed, on the request of counsel for the applicants, that in case the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within 90 days from today and apply for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided as per the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
Till then no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.
However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.
It is made clear that the applicant will not be granted any further time by this court for surrendering before the court below as directed above.
With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 23.2.2021 Atul kr. sri.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to applicants in the initial complaint stage pending trial.
Whether conditions can be imposed on the applicants regarding surrender and bail application timing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P.Explained¶8
2004 (57) ALR 290
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.Explained¶8
2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Satyapal Sharma And 5 Others
State Of U.P.
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
