Disposed

Awadh Raj Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home and Ors.

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2022/15631/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of an anticipatory bail application by directing applicants to move for regular bail before the trial court within 10 days. No coercive action shall be taken against applicants during this period. Bail decision must balance personal liberty with offence gravity.

What did the court decide?

Directed applicants to move for regular bail before the trial court within 10 days; no coercive action shall be taken against them during this period.

Awadh Raj Singh and Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 15631 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Awadh Raj Singh And Anr. Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home And Ors.

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.

¶6

Case is called out.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Devendra Pratap Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4, Sri Arvind Pratap Singh, Advocate and learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Anurag Singh Chauhan, Advocate are present.

¶8

The present criminal misc. anticipatory bail application is moved on behalf of the applicant involved in Case Crime No.352/2021 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 308 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station- Colonelganj, DistrictGonda.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused applicants were primarily arraigned with offences under Section 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and later on they were additionally arraigned under Section 341 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the applicant in his bail application has stated that even the court below where the application for anticipatory bail has been rejected vide its order dated 12.11.2021 has taken note of the preparation of charge sheet but the same is not submitted before the court. He further submitted that it means that he has ever cooperated with the Investigating Officer.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that offence except Section 308 I.P.C. all non cognizable and bailable and punishable up to seven years only. So far as the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. is concerned, it is added during the investigation on the basis of medical examination report of the injured. The First Information Report dated 28.9.2021, on its perusal disclosed that the dispute between the parties bursted with regard to erasing the boundary mark pillar from the field wherein the parties falling into a fracas.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. on the basis of instructions submits that charge

¶12

sheet has already been submitted on 6.11.2021 before the court concerned and investigation has been completed now. Learned counsel for the complainant has also opposed the prayer of bail applicant on the ground that injuries inflicted by the accused applicants are on the vital part of the injured and therefore, they cannot plead innocence in the matter.

¶13

This Court while sitting to decide the entitlement of the applicant to be released on bail during the trial or at any stage of the proceeding under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not concerned with the finding on merit as to the innocence or guilt of the accused, whatever the prima facie evidence are collected by the Investigating Officer that would be material for assessing the prima facie case of the prosecution against the accused person.

¶14

However, keeping into mind the fact and submission of the charge sheet before the court concerned, the applicants are directed to go before the court concerned, put their appearance by moving regular application for bail and the court concerned had to see the parameters for grant or refusal of bail in view of the case of Hon'ble Apex Court in Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi and Another (2001) 4 SCC 280, Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2018) 3 SCC 22, Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 1 SCC 40 , so that to balance the right of the accused or personal liberty with the gravity of the offence.

¶15

The bail application is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court that if the applicants moves application for regular bail before the Court below within 10 days from today and applies for bail, their prayer for bail shall be considered and decided expeditiously as soon as practicably possible in accordance with law.

¶16

For a period of aforesaid 10 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants in the aforesaid case.

¶17

Order Date :- 4.1.2022 Gaurav/-

Awadh Raj Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Awadh Raj Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Home and Ors.

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

Sumit Katiyar Vs State of U.P.

Mratunjay Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Manoj Vs State of U.P.

Ajay @ Anoop @ Ashok Kumar Gharadiya Vs State of U.P.

Abhishek Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Nan Bhaiya @ Mohd. Saeed Vs State of U.P.