Allowed

Rajjan and Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Lucknow

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2022/15282/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC for the appellants in a criminal case involving IPC offences. The court noted falling foul was false implication and no need for custodial interrogation, granting bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicants enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties of like amount before the concerned Police Station House Officer along with conditions t

Rajjan and Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 15282 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Rajjan And Anr. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Lucknow

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Gupta,Dinesh Kumar Mishra,Rajesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Chandra Kishore, Advocate holding brief of Sri Manoj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Vyas, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.

¶7

The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicants, namely, Rajjan and Raj Kumar in Case Crime No. 0207 of 2020, under Sections 308, 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police StationDeeh, District- Raebareli, till the conclusion of the trial after rejecting anticipatory bail application of the applicant by Sessions Judge, Raebareli vide order dated 28.10.2016.

¶8

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicants are that the applicant are innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that the first information report has been lodged under Section 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. on 13.05.2020 against four persons including the applicants. It is further submitted that general role of marpit have been assigned to the applicants. It is further submitted that under Section 308 of Cr.P.C. has been added during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the applicants. As per medical report of the injured, Badri Prasad and Parvati, lacerated wound on legs, left arm, left thumb, little finger and contusion on forearm and chest were found. It is further submitted that the offence is punishable up to 7 years imprisonment.

¶9

It is further submitted that applicants have granted interim bail on 03.01.2022 in the present case. The applicants are no more required for custodial interrogation. The applicants have no criminal history except one minor offence and they have not undergone any imprisonment after conviction by any court of law in relation to any cognizable offence previously. It is further contended that the applicants are ready to participate in the

¶10

investigation.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant and submitted that applicants have criminal history of one case which is related to minor offence.

¶12

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 Vs. 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.

¶13

It is settled position of law that the anticipatory bail being an extraordinary privilege should be granted only in exceptional cases. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied, where the Court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely roped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty.

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)-2020 SCC Online SC 98, ground for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.

¶15

In case of arrest, the applicants, Rajjan and Raj Kumar are directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in above case crime number till the conclusion of trial, on their furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties each of like amount before the Station House Officer of Police Station/Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required, if investigation is in progress;

¶17

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

¶18

(iii) The applicants shall not leave the country 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/Court concerned;

¶19

(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant along-with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked ;

¶20

(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.

¶21

The Investigating Officer will continue with the investigation, if it is in progress and will not be affected by this order.

¶22

A copy of this order shall also be produced before the S.P/S.S.P concerned by the applicants, within a week, if the investigation is still in progress, who shall ensure compliance of this order.

¶23

With the aforesaid directions, the present Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.

¶24

Order Date :- 29.8.2022 Ishan

¶25

Digitally signed by ISHAN JAISWAL Date: 2022.09.01 09:44:32 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajjan and Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajjan and Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Lucknow

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

Prem Chandra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Jaswant Singh @ Bagga Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home and Anr.

Manoj Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mohd, Mohseen Vs Union of India Thru, D.R.I Lucknow

Avadhesh Verma Vs State of U.P.

Subhash Awasthi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.