Court allowed anticipatory bail application of applicant filed in complaint case under Section 420 IPC on grounds of parity with co-accused, imposing standard conditions including bond and sureties.
Granted anticipatory bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties each to satisfaction of SHO.
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. - 78
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10476 of 2022
Applicant :- Chandan Kumar Rai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dinesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vibhav Anand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.
The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in Complaint Case No.1614 of 2014 (Dhanra Devi vs. Babaram and Others), under Section 420 IPC at Police Station- Badagaon, District Varanasi with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that co-accused person, Ramdhani Verma, has already been granted anticipatory bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.10.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.10042 of 2022. Therefore, the present applicant is also entitled for anticipatory bail on the ground of parity. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he will cooperate in the trial failing which the State can move appropriate application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.
The prayer for anticipatory bail has been vehemently opposed by learned A.G.A. However, the aforesaid factual aspect of the parity to the co-accused has not been disputed by him.
On due consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and considering the fact that the co-accused person has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail, the applicant is liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1" . The future contingencies regarding the anticipatory bail being granted to applicants shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application of the
applicant is allowed. Let the accused-applicant- Chandan Kumar Rai be released forthwith in the aforesaid case crime (supra) on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned/court concerned with the following conditions:-
It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are exclusively for deciding the instant anticipatory bail application and shall not affect the trial or deciding the regular bail application.
Order Date :- 17.11.2022 Ravi Kant
Digitally signed by RAVI KANT Date: 2022.11.17 17:27:19 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail on grounds of parity with a co-accused who has already been granted bail under S. 438 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)Distinguished¶9
Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chandan Kumar Rai
State Of U.P
Krishan Pahal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
